Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan What We Heard Report
Contents Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan: Phase 3 Engagement ...... 3 1.1. Key Themes ...... 4 1.2. What We Heard, What We Did ...... 7 1.3. Public Open House Feedback ...... 9 1.4. Survey ...... 11 Appendix A: Open House Panels Verbatim Responses ...... 32 Appendix B: Question 9 Verbatim Responses ...... 36 Appendix C: Question 10 Verbatim Responses ...... 52 Appendix D: Question 11 Verbatim Responses ...... 56 Appendix E: Question 12 Verbatim Responses ...... 60 Appendix F: Email Verbatim Responses ...... 65
Page | 2
Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan: Phase 3 Engagement
The Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan is being developed as a collaborative effort between the eight (8) municipalities surrounding Sylvan Lake. The municipalities include Lacombe County, Red Deer County, Summer Village of Birchcliff, Summer Village of Half Moon Bay, Summer Village of Jarvis Bay, Summer Village of Norglenwold, Summer Village of Sunbreaker Cover, and the Town of Sylvan Lake. The purpose of the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan is to collectively protect the environment and watershed, enable appropriate development, and support the diversity of the municipalities located within the Plan Area. The project has been divided into three phases. This What We Heard Report includes the feedback gathered through Phase 3.
Engagement
Engagement for the final phase of the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan began in November 2019. A public open house was held on November 20, 2019 at the NexSource Centre, Senior’s Centre in Sylvan Lake and was open to the public from 5:30pm to 8:00pm. The purpose of the open house was to present the final draft of the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan and to allow participants to ask questions of the project team as well as provide input on the draft plan. Participants were asked to provide feedback by writing comments on post-it notes and leaving them on the open house boards, or by completing a survey. The survey was made available through a hard copy version that could be accessed at the Open House, at any of the Partner Municipality office, or online through the project website. The survey was available to the public from November 20, 2019 until December 4, 2019.
The survey consisted of 12 questions requesting feedback on the main sections of the draft plan. The information gathered through the survey allowed the project team to understand any discrepancies in the policies and gather new information that may not have been included to date in the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan so that revisions can be made.
Engagement by the Numbers
Public Feedback Public Open House
(Surveys and email/in person/mailed 90 participants submissions) 103 responses
Page | 3
1.1. Key Themes
Protecting the Environment
Phase 1 engagement results noted “protecting the environment and watershed” as the priority for the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. Throughout Phase 1 engagement, the consistent underlying theme had been protection of natural features in the area.
In the Phase 3 engagement, the trend of protecting environment remains as one of the highest themes with support from 14% of comments identifying protecting the environment, water quality and wildlife. Many respondents noted the positive impact a formalized boat launch would have on the overall health of the lake and that closing informal launches would need to occur to continue to maintain the health of the lake. There is concern regarding the health of the lake due to invasive species that can enter the waterways when launching boats into the water. A comment theme was that respondents that believe a new formalized boat launch should be controlled in order to further protect the water.
Development Setbacks
Approximately 10% of the comments indicate that the 30-metre setback requirements for properties that are already subdivided or developed, outlined in section 6.0 – Environment under Environmental Reserve and Development Setback from Sylvan Lake and Environmental Reserve and Development Setbacks from Sylvan Lake Tributaries, are excessive and will render many properties undevelopable. Many respondents commented that the existing properties in the Summer Villages cannot allow for a 30m setback.
There have been several recommendations put forward: existing properties be exempt or “grandfathered” from the policies; or the setback requirement of 30-metre be eliminated; or comments support using the development design plan approach.
Sample comments that speak to those respondents that are against the 30-metre setback requirement include (the following feedback is verbatim):
• The 30 m setback from the bank is unrealistic. That would render undeveloped lots or lots with old cottages (tear downs) unusable.
• Homes do not need to be 30 meters from the lake bank. Perhaps 7m. For those already in place, it is not necessary to dictate 30m. Areas that are not developed or vacant do not need to be placed in this category of 30 m. Perhaps 5-7 m
• 6.2.10: We recommend: All existing lakefront lots be excempt Allow development at the discretion of development authority on existing lakefront lots i.e. 30m setbacks are totally impossible in the existing Summer Village lots
• Do not support 6.2.10 (30 m setback). Existing lakefront properties must be exempt. We support 6.2.11 which allows for redevelopment within 30 m with permit. We do not support the 6.2.14 recommendations for setbacks from tributaries. Existing lakefront lots must be exempt. Support 6.2.15 allowing for redevelopment in 30 m with permit. We support the 6.2.16 setback policy.
Page | 4
Trails
Phase 1 engagement found that trails are identified as an important recreation feature for the area. Phase 1 saw 65% of the respondents support the development of a regional trail around the lake. Section 7.0 – Recreation recognizes the importance in developing a trail within the Plan Area of the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. Respondents in the Phase 3 engagement were less concerned with the trail, with only 6% of comments speaking to the trail at all, with responses split 3% for the trail, and 3% against it. Respondents noted that there are concerns included: environmental impacts of the trail; consideration for which of the Partner Municipalities would be responsible for maintaining the trail; and impacts of the trail on adjacent neighbours.
Sample comments that speak to perspectives for and against a trail system include (the following feedback is verbatim):
• The proposed trail around the lake is a good idea, but we've found that nature tends to take over when one is constructing a trail close to the water, i.e. the ice piles up in the spring, and erodes the banks and trails. This is not caused by humans; this is nature at work!
• I support a regional trail system as long as the privacy and maintenance for quiet enjoyment of existing residential property is a priority in route planning.
• Summer villages enjoy quiet enjoyment of their areas and adding a trail system may result in the loss of that.
• Do not support 7.2.1-regional trail system. Jeopardizes wildlife, environment and flora; infringes on existing properties and causes erosion of lake bank; many existing trails in the region already; would require costly infrastructure and maintenance.
Motorized Lake Access
Phase 1 engagement found that there was strong support for providing increased boat access to the lake with 45% of respondents in favour. In Phase 3, the trends remain the same where approximately 12% of comments stressed the importance of developing a formalized boat launch within the Plan Area. Many additional comments focused on the importance that a controlled boat launch in supporting lake health by protecting Sylvan Lake from invasive species. Other comments associated with this theme included locating a gas station at the boat launch to prevent fuel from entering the waterways. Most respondents did not provide feedback on the proposed boat launch sites; however there were some comments that would like to see the boat launch located within the Town of Sylvan Lake.
When a formalized boat launch is determined and the municipalities agree to the location and costing for it, a number of respondents would like to see the informal launches permanently closed.
Sample comments that speak to those respondents supporting a formalized boat launch include (the following feedback is verbatim):
• Section 7.2.4- 7.29 Boat launch. I feel we need to get the boat launch started immediately. Protecting our lake is vital. The enjoyment of the lake and the value of our properties depends on this. At present there is no place to buy fuel for boats on the lake. People are setting up fuel tanks
Page | 5
near the water and this has a potential of leading to a big disaster. ( spills) We need to have a safe place where boaters can fuel up
• Support 7.2,4-7.2.9-development of boat launch; need immediate and specific timelines to shutdown uncontrolled access; implement mandatory boat inspections for invasive species; include fuel procurement and should be self supportive after initial investment.
• We definitely need formal motorized boat access, and I don't understand why the town isn't willing to build this within town limits. There needs to be a timeline on when this will happen, and when the informal ones will be closed, as they are a huge problem for many reasons!
• The plan does not address invasive species into the lake. This should be priority number one and the solution is a new monitored boat launch site.
• We support 7.2.4 - 7.2.9 regarding the development of a boat launch. We recommend immediate and specific timelines to shut down uncontrolled access to the lake. Please implement requirements for mandatory inspection of all boats for invasive species, both flora and fauna. The boat launch should include safe fuel procurement and be self supporting
Higher Density Residential Land Use
Section 5.0 – Land Use of the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan speaks to general nature of land use in the Plan Area. 10% of comments do not support the policies noted under Higher Density Residential. The Higher Density Residential areas refer to either the Lacombe County’s Sylvan Lake Area Structure Plan or the Sylvan Lake/Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan. Largely the comments are focused on lack of support for higher density near the Summer Villages, or the lake, but with particular emphasis on the lands identified by the Sylvan Lake/Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan.
Sample comments that speak to those respondents that are against the higher density residential include (the following feedback is verbatim):
o 5.2.23 – do not support this – reason there is enough empty developed land in the Town of S.L. and no need for higher density in any of the S.V.
o Section 5 identifies higher density residential areas around Sylvan Lake in 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 in two counties which I believe these areas should be lower residential for at least one kilometre back from the lake. Overall there is too much development allowed for the lake's long term sustainability environmentally.
o Higher Density residential should be focused around a Town Center where City/Town functions are provided to the residents, not around the Lake.
Page | 6
1.2. What We Heard, What We Did Based on the feedback outlined in this What We Heard report, the following main themes were considered for revisions to the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. Plan revisions are based on a number of factors including engagement, and so this section outlines the changes considered, what changes were made, and the rationale for including the change or not. What We Heard Theme What Was Done Rationale
Concern about higher No change was made to the Land uses from existing statutory density residential in the policies. The land use title was plans are outside the scope of Plan Area. Concern that the land use doesn't change to Residential to match this IDP project. Alignment with match the Sylvan Lake / the other IDP in the Plan Area the existing plan is appropriate Red Deer County for consistency. rather than the Lacombe County Intermunicipal Sylvan Lake Area Structure Plan. Development Plan.
Concern about 30 metre Setback policy for Setbacks for redevelopment setback (or a setback redevelopment was maintained. already provided an alternate defined by an environmental Setback policy for vacant approach to setbacks. This assessment) for vacant parcels was changed to reflect alternate approach is now used and redevelopment the redevelopment approach of for vacant parcels as well. This lands from the lake and using Development Design will provide a balanced approach tributaries. Plan. to mitigating negative impacts on the environment through performance rather than a static distance setback.
Support for a formalize The Lake Access Management The implementation plan will boat launch with strong Plan; formal lake access point provide guidance to the interest in seeing a short timeline development - Site 5P; formal Intermunicipal Development Plan hand launch boat site for non- Committee and Partner motorized crafts only - Site 2F; Municipalities on prioritization of and appropriate road allowance future projects. closure and reclamation were identified for the short-term horizon in the implementation plan
Concern that the land Changed quarter sections in Updates to the mapping were uses did not match the the southern portion of the Plan made to resolve inaccuracies. Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Area to agricultural to match Development Plan. the Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan.
Page | 7
Confusion on the Updated the Confined Feeding Alleviated any confusion between mapping colours for the Operations overlay map to a the two maps. Confined Feeding Operations overlay and different colour. the hatching on the Future Land Use map.
Interest in adding the No change The lake is outside the municipal lake to the project scope jurisdiction and so out of scope for the intermunicipal development plan.
Interest in having a No change Noise pollution is not within the broad noise pollution scope of an intermunicipal policy development plan.
Comments about No change The Intermunicipal Development providing specifics Plan is a high order plan that related to the trail location and cannot provide details on the trail connections location, connections or maintenance. The policy calls for a regional trail plan that will address all these considerations.
Interest in ensuring Updated to include stakeholder Stakeholder and public engagement occurs with and public engagement as one engagement will be important to the Regional Trail Plan of the components of the plan build on the work already completed through previous studies, and to identify the most appropriate route, design, and other factors for the trail. Engagement would normally be expected, but the policy now provides it explicitly.
Interest in ensuring No change It is standard practice to include engagement occurs with engagement on master plans. the Regional Recreation, Parks and Open Space Master Plan
Interest in including boat Policy added The lake access management fuelling in future plans plan that will guide the for formal lake access points development of future formal lake access points is the appropriate initiative to consider boat fueling.
Page | 8
1.3. Public Open House Feedback
The feedback below provides key themes that emerged from the open house. These key themes mirror those that were provided through survey feedback. There is concern regarding the higher density policies in Section 5.0 – Land Use, concerns regarding the 30-metre setback requirement policies in Section 6.0 – Environment, and support for a formalized boat launch.
The following table provides further detail on the key themes that were identified. The verbatim responses are provided in Appendix A. Land Use Key Themes Number of Mentions
Concerns regarding higher density 7
Questions regarding Confined Feeding Operations about the definition and when 2 existing CFO’s will end
Concerns on sprawl 1
Concern that sticky notes disappeared 1
Environment Key Themes Number of Mentions
Concerns about 30-metre setback 8 Protect the lake – limit farm animals within a buffer / mitigate stormwater 2 Provide enabling wording to create noise pollution controls 1 Environmental Reserve definition – to the top of bank 1
Recreation Key Themes Number of Mentions
Support for boat launch 13
Support for trail system 5
Support for a gas station for boats 2
Support for winter ice trail 2
Parking is needed 2
Road maintenance 1
Page | 9
Adequate management 1
Percentage of users from outside plan area 1
Infrastructure Key Themes Number of Mentions Support wastewater regional line around the lake 2
No septic fields 2
Not supportive of using Sylvan Lake water for the regional water system 2
Shared Municipal Services Key Themes Number of Mentions No Comments Collaboration, Plan Andministration, and Number of Mentions Implementation Key Themes
Support for Norglenwold annexation 1
Acknowledgment of Treaty 6 and traditional territory of Indigenous + Metis peoples of 1 Central Alberta
Page | 10
1.4. Survey The survey was made available at the Public Open House, at all Partner Municipality’s municipal offices, and online through the project website. There were 98 respondents in total; 25 submitted hard copies, while 73 took part online. The content below summarizes the feedback that was received from the surveys. There were some respondents that did not reply to every question. The information presented below reflects the data that was gathered through the multiple-choice questions and the open-ended questions. The bar charts reflect the information that was received through the multiple-choice questions, while the tables reflect the feedback that was received through the open-ended questions.
1. Please choose the statement that best reflects you.
Respondents were asked to select which of the eight communities they resided or own property in. Some respondents selected more than one option as they reside in one municipality and are landowners in another; therefore, the numbers presented below do not accurately reflect the number of survey responses.
Demographics
2 3 14 10 8 2 14 3 7 5
40
Number Location
10 Lacombe County resident/landowner in Plan Area
3 Lacombe County resident/landowner outside plan area
8 Red Deer County resident/landowner in plan area
2 Red Deer County resident/landowner outside plan area
Page | 11
3 Summer Village of Birchcliff resident/landowner
7 Summer Village of Half Moon Bay resident/landowner
5 Summer Village of Jarvis Bay resident/landowner
40 Summer Village of Norglenwold resident/landowner
14 Summer Village of Sunbreaker Cove resident/landowner
14 Town of Sylvan Lake resident/landowner
1 Other
“Other” responses (verbatim):
• Rocky Mountain House
2. Overall, do you feel the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan reflects your vision for growth in the plan area?
Respondents were asked to select whether they were satisfied (thumbs up), neutral, or dissatisfied (thumbs down) with the overall draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. There were 96 responses gathered for this question. Two respondents who did not provide answers. The respondents were split on the overall draft of the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan with 34 satisfied, 28 neutral, and 34 dissatisfied.
40
35
30
25 Thumbs Up 20 Neutral Thumbs Down 15
10
5
0
Page | 12
3. Is there any feedback you would like to provide regarding any of the Land Use, Environment, Recreation, Infrastructure, Shared Municipal Services, or Collaboration, Plan Administration, and Implementation policies?
This was an open-ended question. This question related to each policy section of the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. Of the 98 respondents, 67 provided feedback.
The questions have been themed into the appropriate question responses below. The verbatim responses are available in Appendix B. Many respondents expressed concerns regarding the higher density policies outlined in section 5.2.; the 30-metre environmental reserve dedication and development setbacks noted in Section 6.2; as well as further protection of the environment and lake by building a formalized boat launch and closing informal boat launches. There was an even split between the number of comments that were supportive or against the trail policies outlined in section 7.2.14.
Top Three Themes:
o No higher density developments in close proximity to summer villages.
o The 30-metre setback is excessive and would make it difficult, if not impossible, for existing developed or vacant properties in many of the Summer Villages to redevelop or build.
o Support for building a formalized boat launch quickly. Many respondents noted that the boat launch should be controlled in order to protect invasive species from entering the waterways. This would further help protect the surrounding environment and keep the lake clean. Many would also like to see a gas station located at the new boat launch to prevent spills from entering the waterways.
4. Overall, do you feel the Land Use policies reflect your vision for the plan area?
Respondents were asked to select whether they were satisfied (thumbs up), neutral, or dissatisfied (thumbs down) with the Land Use policies of the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. There were 95 responses for this question. Three respondents did not provide answers for this question while one respondent selected two answers. Of the respondents, 44 were dissatisfied, 22 were neutral, and 39 were satisfied.
Page | 13
50
45
40
35
30 Thumbs Up 25 Neutral Thumbs Down 20
15
10
5
0
Land Use Key Themes Number of Mentions
Concerns about higher density 19
Against further development in the plan area 4
Support for higher density 4
Improvements to mapping: too high level 2 Questions / Concerns on Commercial Development 2 Support eliminating Confined Feeding Operations 2 Concern regarding Town of Sylvan Lake growth area 1 Concern about the recreational land use 1 Lack of information on planning and investment guidelines 1
Mapped areas show conflicting uses 1
Page | 14
5. Overall, do you feel the Environment policies reflect your vision for the plan area?
Respondents were asked to select whether they were satisfied (thumbs up), neutral, or dissatisfied (thumbs down) with the environment policies of the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. There were 92 responses for this question. Six respondents did not provide answers for this question. Of the respondents, 44 were satisfied, 25 were neutral, and 23 were dissatisfied.
Environment 50
45
40
35
30 Thumbs Up 25 Neutral
20 Thumbs Down
15
10
5
0
Environment Key Themes Number of Mentions Against 30-metre setback for vacant and existing lots 22
Protect the environment 17
Concerns over water quality/health of lake 9 Controlled boat launch monitoring: invasive species 9 Support for the setback approach involving a development design plan 5 for all redevelopment and vacant lots
Protect wildlife 5
Support 30-metre setback for subdivisions 3
Page | 15
Against 30-metre setback for subdivisions 1 Municipalities should be held accountable of Alberta Low Impact 1 Development standards
Buffer zones are ineffective 1 Identify natural areas to protect from development 1 Concern about which watershed is being highlighted 1 Support 30m setback for newly developable lands 1
6. Overall, do you feel the Recreation policies reflect your vision for the plan area?
Respondents were asked to select whether they were satisfied (thumbs up), neutral, or dissatisfied (thumbs down) with the recreation policies of the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. There were 96 responses for this question. Two respondents did not provide answers for this question while one respondent selected two answers. Of the respondents, 40 were satisfied, 30 were neutral, and 26 were dissatisfied.
Recreation 45
40
35
30 Thumbs Up 25 Neutral 20 Thumbs Down 15
10
5
0
Page | 16
Recreation Key Themes Number of Mentions Support formalized boat launch with desire for a short timeline 24 Support closing informal boat launches / road allowances 13 Concern about lack of boating fueling station 8
Support trail system 6
Against trail system 6 Support non-motorized launch site only 2 Against additional formalized boat launch 2
Support allocated mooring 1 Concern about closing controlled motorized launches 1 Concerns about the recreation planning 1 Against closing road allowances that provide lake access 1 Inspection for onboard sewage containment 1
Support boat launch option at 2F 1
Support a regional trail between larger centres 1 Support a municipal trail monitored by each respective municipality 1
7. Overall, do you feel the Infrastructure policies reflect your vision for the plan area?
Respondents were asked to select whether they were satisfied (thumbs up), neutral, or dissatisfied (thumbs down) with the infrastructure policies of the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. There were 92 responses for this question. Six respondents did not provide answers for this question. Of the respondents, 35 were satisfied, 32 were neutral, and 25 were dissatisfied.
Page | 17
Infrastructure 40
35
30
25 Thumbs Up 20 Neutral Thumbs Down 15
10
5
0
Infrastructure Key Themes Number of Mentions Support for the proposed wastewater servicing 7
Support eliminating septic fields 5
Concerns about environmental damage of septic fields 2 Concerns about the infrastructure plan not being concrete or detailed 2 enough
8. Overall, do you feel the Shared Municipal Services policies reflect your vision for the plan area?
Respondents were asked to select whether they were satisfied (thumbs up), neutral, or dissatisfied (thumbs down) with the Shared Municipal Services policies of the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. There were 94 responses for this question. Four respondents did not provide answers for this question. Of the respondents, 49 were satisfied, 30 were neutral, and 15 were dissatisfied.
Page | 18
Shared Municpal Services 60
50
40 Thumbs Up 30 Neutral Thumbs Down 20
10
0
Shared Municipal Services Themes Number of Mentions Lack of information on financial 1 relationships
9. Overall, do you feel the Collaboration, Plan Administration, and Implementation policies reflect your vision for the plan area?
Respondents were asked to select whether they were satisfied (thumbs up), neutral, or dissatisfied (thumbs down) with the Collaboration, Plan Administration, and Implementation policies of the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. There were 92 responses for this question. Six respondents did not provide answers for this question. Of the respondents, 39 were satisfied, 32 were neutral and 21 were dissatisfied.
Page | 19
Collaboration, Plan Administration, & Implementation 45
40
35
30 Thumbs Up 25 Neutral 20 Thumbs Down 15
10
5
0
Collaboration, Plan Administration, Number of Mentions and Implementation Key Themes Concern about landowner costs to implementation / impact on taxes 3 Support cost-sharing between the municipalities 1 Concerns about Collaboration/Plan Administration/Implementation: not 1 being able to implement quickly Concern regarding division of partner responsibility 1 Requirement of annual meetings not necessary 1 The IDPC should be allowed to add Technical Advisory Committees on an 1 as, if, and when basis IDPC should be mandated to meet quarterly 1
Page | 20
Policy Context & Interpretation Key Number of Mentions Themes Concern regarding provincial control: need the Province to make decisions on the use of the lake and locating 2 dock/mooring structures
Concern with the project scope 1
Confusion regarding the hierarchy of plans 1 Engagement Feedback Key Number of Mentions Themes
Poor timing of engagement session 2
Concerns regarding survey 1
Consultation only includes approximately 200 responses from a 1 population of over 15,000
Miscellaneous Key Themes Number of Mentions Lost identity of Sylvan Lake / Summer Villages 6
Concern over boat traffic 6
Concern over noise pollution 4
Support for regional government 1
Concern with past Town of Sylvan Lake decision-making/planning 1
Concern over noise pollution 1
Page | 21
10. What about the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan stands out the most to you? Please explain.
For this question, respondents were asked to provide feedback on information or policies that stand out the most in the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. Of the 98 survey respondents, 46 provided comment for this question.
The common themes for this question mirror what was stated previously in question 9. The respondents continued to emphasize the importance of a formalized boat launch. Many respondents stated that a controlled boat launch will help protect the health of the lake by protecting it from invasive species through proper watercraft inspections. Respondents have been consistent in noting their concerns towards the proposed 30-metre setback in Section 6.0. Again, the comments mirror those that were captured in question 9 where respondents identified that many properties, especially those in the Summer Villages of Norglenwold and Jarvis Bay would be unable to redevelop with the existing requirements in place.
Top Three Themes:
o Protect the environment / lack of attention to environmental issues / water quality / water heath
o Support formalized boat launch
o Potential for good collaboration between the municipalities Land Use Key Themes Number of Mentions
Higher density – concern expressed 3 Commercial development on Rainy Creek Road 3 Disagree with recreational land use near Sunbreaker Cove 3
Land use 1 Land uses identified that won’t be useful for 20 years 1 Concern with Town of Sylvan Lake growth area 1
Environment Key Themes Number of Mentions
Protect the environment 7 Lack of attention to environmental issues 4
Page | 22
Against 30-metre setback 3
Concerns over water quality/health of lake 3
Development setback requirements 2
Protecting the watershed 2
Protect wildlife 2 Impacts of higher density development on the environment 1 Support for 30-metre requirements for new builds 1
Recreation Key Themes Number of Mentions
Support formalized boat launch 6
Support trail system 4
Concern about lake access 3
Lack of urgency/timelines to the development of a boat launch to 2 prevent invasive species
Need for boat gas station 2
Against added boat launch 2
Concerned about a trail around the lake 1
Support for boat launch 5P 1 Extensive focus on motorized boat launch 1
Lack of lake access for boats 1 Support closing informal road allowances 1
Support recreational plan 1
Page | 23
Infrastructure Key Themes Number of Mentions
Support wastewater servicing 2
Concern about infrastructure plan 1
Plan needs to address drinking water 1
Pave Range Road 22 to accommodate increased traffic 1
Shared Municipal Services Themes Number of Mentions
Concern over water supply 1
Collaboration, Plan Administration, Number of Mentions and Implementation Key Themes
Potential for good collaboration 5 Collaboration & Plan Administration & Implementation 1 Concern about landowner costs to implementation 1
Policy Context & Interpretation Key Number of Mentions Themes
Scope 1
Concern about hierarchy of plans 1
Concern regarding Provincial control: need the Province to make decisions on the use of the lake and locating 1 dock/mooring structures
Miscellaneous Key Themes Number of Mentions
Concern over boat traffic 2
Concerns regarding the survey 1
Page | 24
Concern with past Town of Sylvan 1 Lake decision-making/planning Concern over noise pollution 1
Respect Summer Villages 1
Concern over planning 1
Access to lake in Summer Villages 1 needs to be reviewed Lack of monitoring for drug and 1 alcohol use Lack of control on hours 1
11. Are there any areas or topics that you feel have not been addressed in the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan? Please explain.
For this question, respondents were asked to provide feedback on any content that may have been missed or overlooked during Phase 2. Of the 98 respondents, 49 provided feedback.
Protecting the environment continues to be an emerging theme. Many respondents would have liked to see more focus of the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan on protecting the environment, protecting the health of the lake, and having a gas station constructed at a boat launch to prevent spills from entering the waterways. A number of respondents would like to see a formalized boat launch located within the Town of Sylvan Lake at the old waterslide site.
Top Four Themes:
o Protect the environment / concerns over water quality / health of the lake
o Close informal boat launches
o Address the need for boat gas station
o Concerns over noise pollution
Land Use Key Themes Number of Mentions
Do not want higher density 1
Support restricting CFOs and recommend manure spreading regulations in frozen ground 1 conditions
Page | 25
Environment Key Themes Number of Mentions Concerns over water quality/health of lake 7
Protect the environment 4
Protect wildlife 4
Concern about 30-metre setback in general 3 Concerns regarding 30-metre setback for existing properties 2 Timeline for plan to protect the environment and health of the Lake 2 Lack of information on identifying Environmentally Sensitive Areas 2
Ecological preservation 1
Use of bed and shore through mooring and dock development 1 Lack of information on Environmental Reserve around the Lake 1 The need to identify the three watersheds 1
Recreation Key Themes Number of Mentions Support closing informal boat launches 7 Concern about lack of information identifying need for boat gas station 5
Support formalized boat launch 4
Support for a controlled/monitored boat launch 4 Support closing informal road allowances 3 Urgency/timeline for formalized boat launch 3
Page | 26
Urgency/timelines for closing informal boat launches 3 Lack of information on locating boat launch within the Town of Sylvan Lake 2
Support trail system 2
Concern about lake access 2
Lack of information on solutions for moorage 2 Concerns on closing informal road access to lake 1 Concern about closing uncontrolled motorized launches 1
Support boat launch at 5P 1
Need for controlled/monitored boat launch 1 Lack of information on limiting number of boat launches 1
Plan should address and identify trails 1
Infrastructure Key Themes Number of Mentions
Lack of information on water supply 2
Lack of information on infrastructure plan 1
Support regional water line 1
Best efforts to conserve water supply 1
Urgent attention needed towards the condition of existing transportation 1 corridors
Page | 27
Shared Municipal Services Themes Number of Mentions
Support Shared Municipal Services 1
Lack of economics/explanation of the formula for cost-sharing 1
Collaboration, Plan Administration, Number of Mentions and Implementation Key Themes Concerns about cost sharing of the boat launch 3
Concerns regarding annexation 1
Concerns for municipal autonomy 1
Identifying/Defining Approving Authority earlier into the document 1 Present coherent guidelines for referrals 1
Policy Context & Interpretation Key Number of Mentions Themes Concern regarding Provincial and Federal control 2
Miscellaneous Key Themes Number of Mentions Lack of information on controlling noise pollution 5
Need to respect Summer Villages 3 Concern with Town of Sylvan Lake decision-making/planning 2
Concern over boat traffic 1
Lost identity of Sylvan Lake 1
Against tents on the beach 1
Concerns over mooring and dock 1 development
Page | 28
Concerns on turning lanes off of 1 Highway 11 Lack of information on boat 1 inspections Lack of information on policing on 1 waters Lack of recognition of the unique aspects of the Summer Village 1 character
12. Is there anything else you would like us to know?
For this question, respondents were asked to provide further information that may not have been captured in the questions above or whether content was missing from the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan. Of the 98 respondents, 43 provided feedback.
Protecting the environment continued to be a common theme for this question. Respondents noted that the timing of the engagement sessions were challenging and did not take into consideration that many summer residents are not located near the Plan Area in November. They believed it would have been beneficial to host the Open Houses in the summer months. An equal number of comments identified support for the work done to date on the draft plan.
Top Three Themes:
o Protect the environment / water quality / health of the lake / wildlife
o Concerns about the public engagement timing / need for more feedback
o Support for the IDP work done to date
Land Use Key Themes Number of Mentions
Concerns on higher density 1
Support higher density 1
Do not want to see Summer Villages overdeveloped 1 Policy addressing oil and gas wells within 1 km of the lake or water wells 1
Environment Key Themes Number of Mentions
Protect the environment 7
Concerns over water quality/health of lake 4
Page | 29
Protect wildlife 2
Lack of plan to protect the environment 2
Against 30-metre setback 1
Concern regarding physical shoreline erosion 1
Recreation Key Themes Number of Mentions Need for controlled boat launch to monitor invasive species 5
Support formalized boat launch 4
Support need for boat gas station 4
Support closing informal boat launches 4
Against added boat launch 1
Support trail system 1
Concerned/against trail system 1
Respect private property rights 1
Identify boat launch and mooring rules and/or location 1
Need for affordable boat launch 1
Further information on mooring 1 Concern regarding lack of information on trail details 1
Infrastructure Key Themes Number of Mentions
Support removal of septic fields 1
Impact of development on existing wells. Need for a water treatment 1 plant.
Page | 30
Policy Context & Interpretation Key Number of Mentions Themes
Concern regarding provincial control 1
Concern over project scope 1
Collaboration, Plan Administration, Number of Mentions and Implementation Key Themes Collaborative funding should have an element of user pay 1
Miscellaneous Key Themes Number of Mentions Poor timing of engagement/more feedback required 6
Support for the work completed to date the plan 6
Concern with past Town of Sylvan Lake decision-making/planning 3
Lost identity of Sylvan Lake 3
Concern over noise pollution 2
Concerns over planning 2
Concerns regarding survey 1
Respect value of Summer Villages 1
Boat launch should be on old 1 waterslide site Against tents on the beach 1
Water access for dogs 1 Concern that money and resources were spent on an IDP that won’t be 1 mandatory soon
Page | 31
Appendix A: Open House Panels Verbatim Responses
1. Based on what you just read on the land use panels, what feedback do you have for the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan?
o High density should have no access off Grande Ave, Honeymoon Dr + Last Chance Way
o When will existing CFO’s be terminated impacts water
o Rationalization of RD County Density Numbers has to be incorperated in SLIDP
o Sticky notes are disappearing
o What is confined feeding operation? 1 animal?
o High density residential should not be allowed within 1km of the Lake.
o Do not want high density nodes facing Grand Ave, Honeymoon Dr + Last Chance Way.
o 5.2.22 and 5.2.23 No apartments
o Rediculuse # amt of high density dev by tour & RD County around lake
o 5.25/acre too dense
o No apartments, condos, duplexes
o Do not support “higher” density development of residential area backing Norglenwold
o Build UP instead of out! Stop costly sprawl!
2. Based on what you just read on the environment panels, what feedback do you have for the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan?
o Please include enabling wording to allow/encourage the development of some controls on noise pollution on our “pristine” lak
o (in environment)
o Lakefront properties should be excemt for 30m setback
o All existing lakefront lots should be exempt
o 6.2.10 from top of bank
o 6.2.4 – 0 (the zero is crossed out) 30 meters!
o Setback should be a maximum of 10m or grandfather in existing properties
o 30 metre set back is impractical for the existing structure / residential layout of Norglenwold o 30 metre setback for what reason?
o Lawns + herbicide against Lake?
o There should be a buffer around the lake so that cattle or other farm animals should not be allowed within 3km of the Lake
o Protect the Lake
o 30m for existing lots should have separate policy
o I a farmer has cattle on property that slopes towards the Lake – there should be measures made to catch the black water (not legible, etc.)
o Protect the Lake
o 30 m setback deems many lots unusable
o Unrealistic
o 10 m
o MGA only allows ER to the top of bank or where wetlands exist
o 30’ setback for Development Permit on 30m is irrational on my 150’ lot. I am precluded from building a house on the site.
3. Based on what you just read on the recreation panels, what feedback do you have for the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan?
o Love the idea of the future plan for the a trail all around the lake
o Boat launch yes – the sooner the better – as the prevention of invasive species is vital for our future / lake + property value
o yes – a trail system – around the lake. Using some existing roads + trails – excellent – need community cooperation
o Monitored boat launch – 5P (check mark)
o Also – one might choose another spot around Jarvis Bay
o Fuel for Boats at present, there is nothing. We need something as people are putting fuel tanks near the water – great potential for spills
o Who feels 80% of users will be from out side the SLIDP area – Province?
o Trail system around lake nice idea
o Winter ice road Invermere + Windermere BC – have the “white road” – that joins the 2 places for family skating + enjoyment
o JARVIS too shallow for motorized launch.
o Town has NOT got the parking
Page | 33
o 5P is excellent o Would like to see a “winter ice trail” on the lake for skaters / cross country, to join all our communities o The start of adequate mgmt. of the Lake usage o How does the Boat Launch in Sylvan Lake fit into this plan? The town was doing consultation on it this summer + had 3 plans? o Boat Launch Make it Happen Now o Need more non motorized launches
o Block off the dirt road access for motorized boats they are bad for the Lake o Boat launch plan looks great. Like the idea of formalizing the non-motorized launch and developing the motorized one. Spreads out access – Sunbreaker, 5P and possible on in town? o Site 5P + 2F are perfect for all consideration. Make it controlled o On Site 5P will the entrance Road be paved? o We definitely need 2 motorized boat launches, that are controlled to prevent zebra mussels, safety, drilling, etc
o Protect the Lake o Love idea of trail around like for all season access. Cross-country running, skiing, cycling, etc. o 5P with good parking is good idea shared costs amongst intermunicipal o Boat launch at site 5P needs to happen soon an shut down all the non controlled boat launches before we damage the Lake
o Range Road 20 is really bad o #1 boat launch site *old water slide lands* Makes the most sense o (up arrow) Boat Launch #1 site o New boat launch should be a controlled site. i.e. gate/hours + self (not legible) o Check for safety, invasive species, alcohol, noise pollution, etc.
o Need huge parking areas for trucks + trailer o Need gas station on lake to try to decrease gas leaking from private docks o Don’t pave Rg 20 – too much use for boat launching already – no place to park o It will be good to have a trail all around the Lake for biking, runners, walking, etc. It will be (not legible) healthy liking draw for the community
Page | 34
4. Based on what you just read on the infrastructure panels, what feedback do you have for the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan?
o Sewer lines around lake
o No septic fields around lake
o Where would regional water supply come from? NOT THE LAKE!
o NO pulling water from lake for regional water system
o All lakefront properties should be connected to the wastewater services
o No septic fields
5. Based on what you just read on the Shared Municipal Services panels, what feedback do you have for the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan?
o No comments
6. Based on what you just read on the Collaboration, Plan Adminis panels, what feedback do you have for the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan?
o Annexation is a positive step for Norglenwold. W have a say in what is developed
o Please include in this plan an acknowledgment of the lands as traditional territory of Indigenous + Metis peoples of Central Alberta + lies within Treaty 6. Please also consider some respectful + meaningful way to invite + include Indigenous engagement within this plan
Page | 35
Appendix B: Question 9 Verbatim Responses
Is there any feedback you would like to provide regarding any of the Land Use, Environment, Recreation, Infrastructure, Shared Municipal Services, or Collaboration, Plan Administration, and Implementation policies? o No high(er) density development behind Norglenwold, understand it will be residential, 30 metre setback is not reasonable to implement in Norglenwold considering the location of Grand Avenue. Concerned that motorized boat access is being reduced. This needs to be better though out
o I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIGH DENSITY HOUSING ON ANNEXED LANDS WEST AND SOUTH OF THE EXISTING NORGLENWOLD SUMMER VILLAGE
o 30 meter setback from high bank seems extreme
o 7.2.4: Identification of site 5P for motorized boat launch is great. 7.2.9: Should be built ASAP with participation of all. 5.2.23: A density of 13 per hectare or vacant lands across from Summer Village would be a disaster. That needs to be addressed. 6.2.10: We recommend: All existing lakefront lots be excempt. Allow development at the discretion of development authority on existing lakefront lots i.e. 30m setbacks are totally impossible in the existing Summer Village lots
o Wastewater servicing is a must around the lake (we need to protect the lake). Not sure we need more boats on the lake. How many boats are allowed before we do damage to the lake. When do we restrict the HP allowed? 150HP? I like the 30m setback. I like the trail system around the lake
o Lacombe County has purchased the land for the 5P boat launch. Are the rest of the IDP municipalities going to help pay for the cost of that purchase?
o I was hoping to see a more concrete plan for infrastructure development
o I personally feel that Sylvan Lake has lost its original identity as a recreational community. I feel that our tax money needs to be spent more wisely and eventually bring back the communities prestige! BRING BACK THE SYLVAN LAKE that was for everyone and NOT for the elite few. Let’s make Sylvan Lake great again (see #10)
o Boat launch 7.2.4 through 7.2.9 – I support this
o 5.2.23 – do not support this – reason there is enough empty developed land in the Town of S.L. and no need for higher density in any of the S.V. 6.2.10 – all existing lakefront lots s/b exempt or left to the discretion of the development authority or be included in 6.2.11. 6.2.14 – why make lots potentially unusable, why not leave existing lakefront lots exempt or left to the discretion of the development authority, and be included under 6.2.15. Boat launch 7.2.4-7.2.9 support this
o Boat launch should be priority Town of Sylvan @ old Water Slide site, not miles from Town Fuel + supply
o Wondering when fibre optics will be installed – paid $500. Waste water removal? Would be nice to be hooked up to sewer better for the lake.
o The 30 m setback from the bank is unrealistic. That would render undeveloped lots or lots with old cottages (tear downs) unusable. The high density for the residential areas (grand ave, last chance way
Page | 36
and honeymoon) are very high. I dont agree with the high density. It will change the small village feel of these areas.
o The largest concerns I have relate to Land Use: 1. The land north and west of Norglenwold and south of Highway 11A is identified in this draft plan and the Intermunicipal Development Plan for the Town of Sylvan and County of Red Deer as future residential development with a minimum density of 13 units per Hectare and no maximum density. This "blanket" density statement implies the land will be part of the Town of Sylvan Lake's growth and could have a significant negative impact on the village of Norglenwold. I recommend this land be identified differently and the policies / planning strategies related to its' future development should recognize input from Norglenwold.....not just the town and the county. The map should be modified to reflect this zone of 3 party input. There is a great opportunity, in this area, to create unique urban environments that recognize the valuable forest south of Honeymoon Drive and Grand Avenue and create a transition zone from lower density to medium density residential. An example of an appropriate urban development strategy would be the creation of "Pocket Neighbourhoods". 2. The 30 meter development setback requirement makes sense for future subdivision planning; however, for existing subdivisions (in particular the Grand Avenue area) where the lots are not very deep, this requirement needs to be modified....for both re-developed and vacant lots. This requirement would make the shallow depth properties unsuitable for development.
o No high density near existing cottages, no 30m setback for existing cottages, new, dedicated boat launch asap and close informal launch road allowances o Recreation: I have concerns about the closing of the dead-end roads to the lake, largely because of the need for emergency access, and once they are officially closed, they can never be reclaimed. I recognize the problem of invasive species entering our lake; however, even if the road allowances are very seldom used, they should not be legally closed. As for a boat launch, both for motorized and non-motorized, this is definitely needed for the west side of the lake. Hopefully the stakeholders can work to this end. Land Use: I understand that the County of Red Deer is revisiting the subdivision limit of only one parcel out of a farmstead as I just completed a survey regarding this. I was unable to be at the Open House, so I didn't hear the comments regarding minimum density of 13 units per gross developable hectare in Red Deer County but that density seems too high for subdivisions in the plan area.
o Boat access, powered or not, needs to be better monitored re zebra mussels and the like and also power boats that exceed noise restrictions o N/A o No o In section 6.0 environment - 30m setback will significantly reduce the property value of existing homes and potentially render some lots unusable o I will send a marked-up copy of the plan showing my comments o Should be a regional municipal government. Summer villages should not exist. o Always environment issues first. Keep Sylvan clean and pristine o Get another boat launch built yesterday! Unfair that Sunbreaker Cove is only public and free launch on lake. We are left to clean up garbage and deal with traffic. This is a big lake Page | 37
o Get another boat launch built yesterday! Unfair that Sunbreaker Cove is only public and free launch on lake. We are left to clean up garbage and deal with traffic. This is a big lake o Get another boat launch built yesterday! Unfair that Sunbreaker Cove is only public and free launch on lake. We are left to clean up garbage and deal with traffic. This is a big lake o Re the commercial development strip along Rainy Creek Road: will it be more than the trailer and boat storage that is already there now? What kind of recreation area is designated for the green space across from the trailer/boat storage? The proposed trail around the lake is a good idea, but we've found that nature tends to take over when one is constructing a trail close to the water, i.e. the ice piles up in the spring, and erodes the banks and trails. This is not caused by humans; this is nature at work! The lake cannot take much more recreational traffic from boats, as the water quality and wildlife are already adversely affected. I'm not sure that putting in two new boat launches is a good idea for this reason. Those of us in the summer villages look forward to a peaceful season from May through October, and that is why we have cabins at the lake -- to get away from noise, pollution, and the general density of city life. o More boat launches on south side of lake are great. Yes to waste water collection. No to septic fields. Less commercial development. More environmental protection zones o No o We do not agree with high density residential next to Norglenwold is in keeping with environmental concerns or the character and ambience of the community. o Some of the objectives of the plan (primarily environmental and residential) may be difficult to realize if the province does not make some decisions on the use of the lake and locating structures such as docks and mooring facilities o Stop developing over the whole lake. There is many attempts around the lake already for new developments and yet no one is building. Take a hint. All you are doing is destroying the exact appeal to the tranquility of the area by putting more homes/development. Perfect example of the mess these committees have created is the town of Sylvan. You cannot even see the lake any longer due to giving the shoreline away to developers. What happened to the boat launch in town? What a mismanaged mess. I moved out of town directly as a result of this. All the areas want is more tax revenue at all costs it seems. Keep over spending and jacking up the taxes. o This is a wonderful initiative and the purpose/goal will have a positive impact on the lake communities. One concern, in general terms, is the possibility for delay due to bureaucracy, over-consideration and/or lack of leadership direction. It would be disappointing to not see this plan come to completion. o Focus on moving ahead with expansion of regional wastewater system. Limit excessive use of lake to recreational boaters to ensure safety and water quality. Work to to the phase out existing CFO's from agricultural use. o We need a boat launch & gas station now! not to be developed in 5P years down the road. If the cost sharing & benefit sharing agreement is in place buy the one in the town of sylvan lake for the benefit of all communities on sylvan lake & pursuit of environmentally safer fueling of the gas station and not having to haul hundreds of jerry cans to boats each summer
Page | 38
o stop trying to make sylvan red deer i live in a small town for a reason. The second this place gets to big I'm moving, already lost so much character form even 10 years ago. PLEASE o The 30 m setback from the bank is unrealistic. That would render undeveloped lots or lots with old cottages (tear downs) unusable. The high density for the residential areas (grand ave, last chance way and honeymoon) are very high. I dont agree with the high density. It will change the small village feel of these areas. o Section 5 5.2.22 and 5.2.23 both talk about high density units per acre near lake access. I do not want any apartments or high density units near Honeymoon Drive or Last Chance Way. Section 6 6.2.10 & 6.2.14 I feel that all existing lakefront lots should be free from set backs of 30 m. Section 7.2.4- 7.29 Boat launch. I feel we need to get the boat launch started immediately. Protecting our lake is vital. The enjoyment of the lake and the value of our properties depends on this. At present there is no place to buy fuel for boats on the lake. People are setting up fuel tanks near the water and this has a potential of leading to a big disaster. ( spills) We need to have a safe place where boaters can fuel up. Section 7.21 Yes we need a trail system for walking and biking around the lake. Could we use already existing roads and join with trails. Much cooperation will be needed by all land owners. Would love to see a Winter Road on the lake ( an ice road for skaters to use) This already exists in Invermere BC and Windermere. o Affects of calcium chloride leeching into ground water / run-off into lake water. ????? o You could do a better job of actually showing on a map the plans. I mostly just see boundaries and nothing that depicts the future look - up close. Map views seem to high level and difficult to comment on. o Section 5 identifies higher density residential areas around Sylvan Lake in 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 in two counties which I believe these areas should be lower residential for at least one kilometre back from the lake. Overall there is too much development allowed for the lake's long term sustainability environmentally. o I strongly oppose the High Density Residential designation on the south side of both Last Chance Way and Honeymoon Drive in the SV or Norglenwold! I believe all current & existing Lakefront development should be exempt from conditional 30 meter development setbacks. I support a regional trail system as long as the privacy and maintenance for quiet enjoyment of existing residential property is a priority in route planning. I strongly support the motorized boat launch location and hope this urgent need is given top priority for implementation at the earliest possible time. I urge the closure & reclamation of Range Road 20 which has been overused and abused as a motorized boat launch for many years. As I live on the corner of Range Road 20 and Last Chance Way, I cannot emphasize enough the extent of the disruption to the “quiet enjoyment” of my lakeside property...it has become a “gong show” of undesirable activity: loud engine noise (boat & vehicles), garbage left everywhere, yelling & foul language, dangerous boating behavior to nearby swimmers, using the treed areas as a bathroom and excessive drug & alcohol consumption in addition to cars parked illegally, often right beside the “no parking” signs! o Totally disagree with the area allotted for high density residential areas around Norglenwold. People want to maintain the quietness, the abundance of wildlife and more natural surroundings. Homes do not need to be 30 meters from the lake bank. Perhaps 7m. For those already in place, it is not necessary to dictate 30m. Areas that are not developed or vacant do not need to be placed in this category of 30 m. Perhaps 5-7 m. Protection of the lake is prime. There is only 1 boat launch available to the public. The one in town is private. There is no place to get fuel for boats near the lake. This is a big problem. The new proposed
Page | 39
location of the boat lift should include a monitoring station to check boats for invasive species. Parking area and fuel station should be available here. All other places where people launch their boats should be closed to motorized boats. More awareness to keeping the lake pristine--through schools, paper, community shoreline clean-ups, winter-ice fishing and recreation--removing fire wood, garbage and not polluting the ice... Trail system is a good idea to promote recreation with residents and visitors. Present roads can be used. Permission for trails through farmers land . Not always along the lake side. Places to rest. Signage and maps indicating distances. Development of a small community center on the land already owned by Norglenwold-Randge Road 15. This could have a playground area, picnic tables, field for playing soccer and sports, wading pool. The recreation facility would have toilets and could be used for hosting functions during the summer and winter. Winter road on ice for skiers to unite the community around the lake. This would be good for businesses and restaurants. There needs to be more available to do during the winter. Wastewater - farmers should not allow their cattle near the water and all drainage of manure should not drain toward the water. Also, no one should be allowed to remain using septic fields. People need to connect to the sewer if it is available. no exceptions. Every resident of the summer villages should be able to be reached by email from the elected Council. Many people are away during the winter so communication by email is very important. Letters by mail do not reach everyone and are costly. More communication between the town, villages and county should be encouraged. This survey was difficult to do because the fist 8 questions were too vague and gave poor direction as to what was being asked. I understand how hard it is to make a survey, but simple questions would have been alot more meaningful and easier to answer. One get easily lost in all the presented information. If you want to hear what people are thinking, then ask directly. Otherwise you defeat the whole purpose of gathering information and not learning what people really want . I took this space to voice everything because I got lost in this survey. o It does not make sense to zone huge tracts of land very close to the lake as high density residential. There is plenty of land away from the lake available for high density. o High Density should not be placed nest to existing summer villages. 30 M setbacks need to be addressed in existing lots as it may render the lots unusable. Closing of unmanned informal boat launches has been recommended in many formal documents yet nothing has been accomplished in over 20 years! It needs to be addressed now! Summer villages enjoy quiet enjoyment of their areas and adding a trail system may result in the loss of that. o High Density - Support aspects of 5.2.22; similar land use policy as Lacombe County (no high density within 600m of lake bank. Recommend 1,200m with no high density development more appropriate. Do not support 6.2.10 (30m setback)-existing lake front properties must be exempt. Support 6.2.11-allows for redevelopment in 30m with permit. Do no support 6.2.14-setbacks from tributaries; existing lake front lots must be exempt. Support 6.2.15-allows for redevelopment in 30m with permit. Support 6.2.16-Setback policy. Recommend additional restrictions to protect environment and health of the lake re: landscaping and new developments within 30m. Support 7.2,4-7.2.9-development of boat launch; need immediate and specific timelines to shutdown uncontrolled access; implement mandatory boat inspections for invasive species; include fuel procurement and should be self supportive after initial investment. Do not support 7.2.1-regional trail system. Jeopardizes wildlife, environment and flora; infringes on existing properties and causes erosion of lake bank; many existing trails in the region already; would require costly infrastructure and maintenance. Page | 40
o We definitely need formal motorized boat access, and I don't understand why the town isn't willing to build this within town limits. There needs to be a timeline on when this will happen, and when the informal ones will be closed, as they are a huge problem for many reasons! "high Density development" is a problem and should not be allowed behind Norglenwold. Setbacks of 30m along the lake are simply not possible in most summer villages. Recreational trails around the entire lake are really not feasible, unless using existing "roads". Those roads are not built for that, no sidewalks, not wide enough. the summer villages exist because those residents want to live in quieter areas away from tourists, lets leave it that way. Who would maintain these trails, provide garbages etc, police them if necessary???
o Support aspects of 5.2.22 - similar land use development policy as Lacombe County (no high density within 600 metres from lake bank) and would recommend a 1200 metre buffer with no high density development would be more appropriate Do not support 6.2.10 (30 m setback); existing lakefront properties must be exempt Support 6.2.11 - allows for redevelopment in 30 m with permit. Do not support 6.2.14 recommendations for setbacks from tributaries; existing lakefront lots must be exempt. Support 6.2.15 - allows for redevelopment in 30 m with permit. Support 6.2.16 - setback policy and we recommend additional restrictions to protect the environment and the health of the lake re: landscaping and new development within 30 m. Support 7.2.4 - 7.2.9 - the development of a boat launch; recommend immediate and specific timelines to shut down uncontrolled access; implement requirements for mandatory inspection of all boats for invasive species. Launch to include safe fuel procurement and be self supporting. Do not support 7.2.1 regional trail system: infringement on existing properties and lends to erosion of lake bank; jeopardizes the environment, wildlife and flora; creates increased traffic that is not necessary given existing trails in the region; would require infrastructure and costly maintenance. o I will provide my comments Section by Section below:
o SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION Although the intention of the SLIDP is focused on land based policies and decision making, it states that the SLIDP is focused on setting clear expectations and agreements as to "...How the environment will be protected..." Clearly this has to include the lake. What is the purpose of protecting the environment and not the lake? The lake has to be contemplated in more policies. It is quite possible that six of eight partner-municipalities of the proposed SLIDP would not be in existence today if not for the lake. To be completely relevant the IDP has to include the lake. (See SECTION 6.0 Introduction) The SLMP, which was created over five years as an IDP, stated that one of its main purposes was "... to maintain the Sylvan Lake watershed as a pristine lake and watershed." One area which can be addressed in many land based decision making is the continuing and escalating noise pollution problem on the lake. Noise pollution is generally accepted as a form of pollution. Excessive noise on the lake was raised at all the previous public consultations.It is an irritant to: various boaters sailors fishermen, paddle boarders swimmers lakeside property owners, and, day users Noise pollution on Sylvan lake has been studied for six years by the Sylvan Lake Quiet Enjoyment Initiative, (QEI) hosted by the Sylvan Lake Watershed Stewardship Society (SLWSS). Most of the actions and policies required to reduce noise pollution are land based policies, education and action. What is needed by the IDP is obligatory and enabling wording in the IDP which requires some appropriate action by the IDP Committee, The QEI could assist with many ideas cataloged over six years. This request is similar to the Draft of the SLIDP which states in SECTION that, while the IDP does not address activities on the lake, it does address lake access. Noise pollution should and can be Page | 41
treated the same. Noise pollution has been found by scientific studies to have negative impacts on fish and wildlife. It is the contention of the QEI Committee that if the community can get the noise pollution problem under control respect for the lake will increase by local residents and, more importantly, visitors. o SECTION 2.0 o PLAN VISION 2.2 Shared vision should include community-base groups such as the SLWSS. Protecting the environment and watershed has to include the lake to be realistic.
. 2.3 Must include the lake.
. 2.4 Add "including the lake". o SECTION 3 POLICY CONTEXT . 3.1 b ADD ...environmentally Significant areas including the lake.
. 3.2 Add ...environmental sustainability of the watershed including the lake. Since the new IDP is considered the highest order of municipal plans, It is imperative that the IDP include protections for the lake as well as the watershed. It is important that the lake be included in consistent standards for 'development, recreation and environmental management. (3.2 Page 17) o SECTION 4.0 PLAN AREA "The Partner Municipalities all share connection to Sylvan Lake and its value as an environmental, quality of life, tourism and financial asset." Considering the above why not include the lake in all relevant clauses throughout the do document to ensure its readers understand the intention. For example the first bullet paragraph Starts with "Sylvan Lake Watershed" why not include with watershed "and the lake?' At the bottom of page 20 should read "...environmental management including the lake"?
. 4.1.1 Since the lake is included in the Plan Area, more inclusive wording would be: The IDP plan area "encompasses all the lands and waterways ... or lands. the lake and other waterways. NOTE: Alberta Environment have informed the SLWSS that the watershed includes the lake, or river, as the case may be. o SECTION 5 LAND USE . 5.2.1 & 5.2.2 It is my recollection that the land in the SL/RDC IDP (2011) located south of Norglenwold and specifically south of Honeymoon Drive was not zoned Higher Density Residential. In any event it should be Lower Density Residential as Higher Density would be a clear Land-use conflict. Both of these zoning classifications are found in Lacombe Counties' planning documents as well. See Map 3 & clause
. 5.2.19 Could the planners please check this apparent discrepancy and advise?
. 5.2.5 A Environmental Reserve Easements should be clearly noted in this section. I t could read - "...all Municipal Reserve, Environmental Reserve Easement, Environmental Reserve, Conservation Reserve in accordance...." The status of the Environmental Reserve Easement (ERE) should be elevated throughout the Plan as it is an excellent tool for environmental protection of the lake. It puts the care of private lakefront lands with Page | 42
the lot owner and not the public's. Also, Norglenwold has 14 lakefront lots that are designated ERE and the lake protection has been excellent.
. 5.2.14 Subject to the 5.2.20 transition strategies and Property Rights.
. 5.2.18 Add "and the lake."
. 5.2.23 My recall of the SL/RDC IDP is that the lands between Honeymoon Drive and generally south of the Village of Norglenwold to then Highway 11A was either Agriculture or Low Density Residential. See previous comments under SECTION 5 5.2.1 and 5. 2.2 5.2.20 Should the reverse not also be applicable? Could be a section a and b.
. 5.2.29 Add "....Sustainability of the watershed AND THE LAKE. o 6.0 ENVIRONMENT Note: All municipalities within the Plan Area are dedicated to the long-term health and sustainability of THE LAKE and surrounding lands. (Refer back to my comments in SECTION 1.0)
. 6.1 Objectives. 6.1 b Could specifically include the lake. Currently states: " To protect the long term health of the watershed and waterbodies. Could state ... the watershed, the lake and other waterbodies.
. 6.2.3 j Conservation recommendations that include i Environmental Reserve/Environmental Reserve Easement; Suggest reverse the order. Priority to the easement
. 6.2.5 f What water?
. 6.2.7 a) Should also include the fish sensitive habitat areas on the lake (FOC) 6.2.7.b)
. 6.2.9 Environmental Reserve and Development Setbacks Add to beginning of heading: Environmental Reserve Easements, 6.2.9;
. 6.2.10; 6.2.11; & 6.2.12 All such developments should clearly be left to the discretion of the approving authorities. Consider:
• With regard to the Summer Villages there are few lots left to be developed
• The Summer Villages have little or no lakefront land available to develop
• There are some undeveloped lots which if one were to apply the 30 meter set back the lots would be undevelopable, or sterilized,
• There are few tributaries in the Villages but leave them to the Villages too.
• Such a policy is counter productive as most owners of deep lots clear cut the lots if their home is are quite far back so they can see the lake. Residences closer to lake can and most do leave more vegetation in front of their home and on banks. Each Sylvan Lake municipality is very different and has different histories, plans opportunities and cultures. The folks who know best how to deal with the setback challenges are the Councillors and staff of each municipality. Leave these set back decisions to them and their processes statutory plans, etc.
Page | 43
o Section 7.0 RECREATION . 7.1 a) To balance increasing demand for recreation uses with environmental protection is not an easy objective. If the IDP does not address this objective carefully now, there may no need to review the plan in 20 years. How is balance determined and how is it achieved? Who pays? The Plan should treat all the activities related to finding the balance as obligatory.
. 7.1 b) To increase RESPECTFUL recreation opportunities for residents and visitors to the area. To increase respectful recreation opportunities to what level? Cost? Who pays? All such plans should always protect private property rights of all local residents.
. 7.2 Policies Trails 7.2.1 Trails should be intended and designed only for walking, cycling and cross country skiing in the winter. No motorized vehicles summer and winter on regional trails.
. 7.2.1 e) Including maintenance and garbage collection.
. 7.2.1 f) Add: Trail planning should seek input from affected ratepayers and residents especially those contiguous to such a planned trail
. 7.2.1.g) Respect Private Property Rights for property owners near or adjacent to a planned trail. Recreational Planning
. 7.2.3 a) Developing a regional open space master plan should seek input from local residents near or on such open spaces and for trail locations and developments.
. 7.2.3 b) Collaborative funding should have an element of user pay.
. 7.2.3 c) Add: Private Property Rights of property owners adjacent to or bordering any planned trails to be respected. Recreational Boat Access
. 7.2.4 7.2.4 a) The operation and management of any motorized launch sites, new or existing , should be self liquidating with user pay programs. b) use 'one' not 'an'. d)before spending any money on planning for building a new formal boat launch. ensure that all the approvals are in place for closure and reclamation of the informal sites; f) before planning for and building a new motorized boat launch at site 5P or at any other approved site, retain a consultant to develop a Recreational Carrying Capacity study of Sylvan Lake and make decisions accordingly. If the lake is at its maximum carrying capacity, no more launch sites should be built except to replace those informal sites closed.
. 7..2.5 Any new motorized launch site should be user pay. See 7.2.4 a) above.
. 7.2.6 add a new formal launch site will b e built only at site 5P Map 6.
. 7.2.7 - add e) Planning for a motorized boat launch site at 5P, Map 6, should include the concept of a "controlled " access site. Controlled would entail an appropriate gate, hours of operation, trained operators with enforcement of existing or new related Federal, Provincial and local bylaws which should should include inspection of/for:
• Appropriate licensing of the: Towing vehicle, Trailer. boat, & Operator's Card;
Page | 44
• Safety equipment (Federal);
• Invasive species (Provincial)
• Alcohol and Drugs (Federal);
• Noise abatement devices (Federal), and The use of moral suasion to play music at a level that no one else can hear it. There is no law yet but AENV have posted signs at appropriated launch sites throughout the province
. 7.2.8 Agree
. 7.2.9 The closing of informal sites only to mortorized boat launching should b e recalimed with appropriate plants on the riparian areas and deigned in such a way as to allow walk- on traffic for the public with canoes, paddleboards, etc. The planning should also prohibit the launching/access at the reclaimed sites of winter vehicles such as snow machines. quads, ATVs, motorcycles and vehicles. PS: Ditch the photo for 7.0. Surely with up to a million visitors each year to primarily recreate on or near the lake, summer ann winter, we can do better than a photo of an outhouse! ( I have many that I would be glad to share.)
o SECTION 8. No comments.S
o SECTION 9 Perhaps a photo of the MultiPlex in Sylvan lake would best represent a shared municipal service/ asset.
o SECTION 10 . 10.2.6 The IDPC should be allowed to add Technical Advisory Committees on an as, if, and when basis.
. 10.2.7 The IDPC should be mandated to meet at least quarterly and should be mandated to act and move forward and bind their Councils. Otherwise little will be achieved. Also the IDPC should b e given funds each year under the shared funding model 910.2.4) to allow it to manage its IDPC responsibilities.
. 10.2 18 Instead of 'can' be referred use 'may' be referred.
. 10,2,21 d) Should read "....proposed development impact the envioronment, the watershed or the lake?"
. 10.2.33 Why not use 'shall' instead of 'may' give written notice...? See table 2 Step 1. See table 5 Step 1 Appendix A Environmental Reserve. Third line: ....as enviromental reserve easement or environmental reserve if it ... Note: my experience is that most private owners will take better care of an ERE ob a riparian area than the public will take care of an ER. in a riparian area. Acronyms Add: IDPC: Intermunicipal Development Plan Committee SLWSS: Sylvan Lake Watershed Stewardship Society QEI Sylvan Lake Quiet Enjoyment Initiative o The plan does not address invasive species into the lake. This should be priority number one and the solution is a new monitored boat launch site. 2 Gasoline is being stored in all types of makeshift tanks. This is a disaster waiting to happen. A fueling station should be incorporated into the new boat launch. 3
Page | 45
Septic fields should be converted to holding tanks within 300 meters of the lake period and now. 4The plan's emphasisth on environmental protection is very positive. However, it would be best to have the ESA component of the plan done before final decisions are made. Perhaps options like purchase or implementation of development restriction designations on certain ESA's are something that might be desirable. These options could be lost if the plan is already completed. I support the addition of a non- powered water craft launch site at 2F, but do not support the construction of additional motorized craft launch sites. The only means of regulating the amount of powerboat use seems to be by default (not planned), determined by the availability of launch sites. Power craft densities at times on many portions of the lake are excessive already creating safety, environmental and aesthetic impacts. I realize that the regulation of actual lake use is the responsibility of other levels of government, but the Intermunicipal Plan can play a role by limiting power craft launch sites to those that exist already. o We would like to support in particular the non-motorized launch at Range Road 23. We would appreciate not adding additional motorized launches, in order to have more control over motorized use of the lake. The regional recreational trail is a wonderful project, and we would be willing to discuss accommodations for it along our waterfront. o We need the ability to manage all our setback policies through prudent planing and sound development controls. We need to close all unofficial lake access points, and develop another boat launch that can monitor all traffic into the lake. o I am very concerned that we do not have a second boat launch similar to the one at Sunbreaker Cove. o We support aspects of 5.2.22 and would like to see development policy as in Lacombe County with no high density within 600 meters from the lake bank. We would recommend that a 1200 meter buffer with no high density development would be more appropriate. Do not support 6.2.10 (30 m setback). Existing lakefront properties must be exempt. We support 6.2.11 which allows for redevelopment within 30 m with permit. We do not support the 6.2.14 recommendations for setbacks from tributaries. Existing lakefront lots must be exempt. Support 6.2.15 allowing for redevelopment in 30 m with permit. We support the 6.2.16 setback policy. We recommend additional restrictions to protect the environment and the health of the lake regarding landscaping and new development within 30 m We support 7.2.4 - 7.2.9 regarding the development of a boat launch. We recommend immediate and specific timelines to shut down uncontrolled access to the lake. Please implement requirements for mandatory inspection of all boats for invasive species, both flora and fauna. The boat launch should include safe fuel procurement and be self supporting. We do not support 7.2.1 regarding a regional trail system. Such a trail would be an infringement on existing properties and would lend to erosion of the lake bank. It would jeopardize the environment, as well as the flora and fauna of the area. The increased traffic that would result is not necessary given the existing trails in the region. A trail system would also require infrastructure and would be costly to maintain. o We support aspects of 5.2.22 and would like to see development policy as in Lacombe County with no high density within 600 meters from the lake bank. We would recommend that a 1200 meter buffer with no high density development would be more appropriate. Do not support 6.2.10 (30 m setback). Existing lakefront properties must be exempt. We support 6.2.11 which allows for redevelopment within 30 m with permit. We do not support the 6.2.14 recommendations for setbacks from tributaries. Existing lakefront lots must be exempt. Support 6.2.15 allowing for redevelopment in 30 m with permit. We support the
Page | 46
6.2.16 setback policy. We recommend additional restrictions to protect the environment and the health of the lake regarding landscaping and new development within 30 m We support 7.2.4 - 7.2.9 regarding the development of a boat launch. We recommend immediate and specific timelines to shut down uncontrolled access to the lake. Please implement requirements for mandatory inspection of all boats for invasive species, both flora and fauna. The boat launch should include safe fuel procurement and be self supporting. We do not support 7.2.1 regarding a regional trail system. Such a trail would be an infringement on existing properties and would lend to erosion of the lake bank. It would jeopardize the environment, as well as the flora and fauna of the area. The increased traffic that would result is not necessary given the existing trails in the region. A trail system would also require infrastructure and would be costly to maintain.
o Section 5 identifies high density residential areas. Except for the town there should be non within one kilometre of the lake – all lower density only. Overall there should be less housing development as the lake will not be sustainable environmentally! o The land use density is too high for Norglenwold and to properly reflect the existing dwellings and use should be set at three to four units per usable acre. o Sylvan Lake recently completed an annexation which provided them a 25 year supple of land for development. The stated period for this IDP is "20 years" but they insist that they need another 20+ quarters, some of which they identify as high density without any planning for the infrastructure to ensure that it is sustainable. Clearly a land grab, without any commitment to evaluate the use of ground water even for existing development and corresponding impact on the lake itself. Further development should be on hold pending mapping for Environmentally Sensitive areas, infrastructure needs and detailed review of the impact on the lake. What is the rush? The IDP should recognize the unique character of both the Jarvis Bay and Norgenwold, create the appropriate buffers or transition zones and clearly state that Sylvan Lake will not initiate an annexation without the express consent of the summers villages themselves. With the huge amount of future growth that is anticipated it is essential to mention the need to work with the province to regulate the use of the lake especially as it relates to boat lifts and docks, noise and water quality. One public meeting and a questionnaire that needs to be completed in a couple of weeks is not an adequate consultation for such and important planning document. Why can't the consultation occur in the summer when interested parties are available rather than the winter when many are away and unable to respond in a meaningful way? o Very well draft. o I feel that you have not reached an acceptable number of responses to make any reasonable conclusions. You have less than 200 responses for an area with over 15,000 people actively living and another 4000 or recreational owners. o Our family has had a cabin in Sunbreaker Cove for 39 years and now has lived here year-round for 9 years. We have experienced losses in environmental riches over that time. As bird lovers we are dismayed that we can list 8 species of terrestrial birds which were regular summer residents before but now are never seen anymore. But it is reassuring to see that the Executive Summary lists “Environmentally Significant Areas Approach” as one of the four key areas of opportunity for the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan, under which the statement is made “natural and environmentally significant areas need to be protected in efforts to conserve remaining natural areas, utilize natural areas Page | 47
to maintain or increase the health of the local environment, provide places for passive recreation, and to maintain the peaceful setting that exists in the area.” The public agrees and 80% indicated in a graph that they support “Conserving existing natural areas”. My family commends those who have spoken up on this issue, and the Development Plan principals who have supported it. But there is a great need to address the issue that “No definitive direction exists around identifying and protecting environmentally significant areas around Sylvan Lake.” To this end, Map 3 of the draft plan is significant in that in yellow it suggests that virtually all of the lakeshore is open for development (with the exception of a very small section of agricultural land close to Half Moon Bay). Without clear direction to protect them, our environmental opportunities are at risk of being pushed into the background under future development pressures. And once developed, such environmental areas can never be recreated. The proposal to define 3 levels of environmental review is commendable. However, this project will take considerable time and considerable funding to achieve, either or both of which may considerably delay their completion, which would also jeopardize the intended protection of these natural areas. Recent research has established that a stunning 2.9 billion birds have gone missing in Canada and the United States alone since 1970, a population decrease of 29%. A significant number of bird species have already disappeared from around the lake and we must strive to prevent further losses. If the full perimeter of the lake is to be left open to development, then there will be a great loss of bird species occurring, amongst other losses.. Consequently: 1. The only way to protect these natural areas is to define them as such before any further development around the lake is considered. Developers seeking to develop around the lake in future must be clearly aware beforehand of the existence of these natural areas so that they can avoid them. 2. To this end, we need to constitute a committee to perform a full circumnavigation of the shoreline to canvas potentially sensitive area which need to be protected. I for one will volunteer to work on that committee. The aim should be to define 10 percent of the total shoreline along the lake as protected. 3. In followup to such a study, we need to work with Alberta Environment and Parks to grant legal status to the selected natural areas. 4. In particular, we need to clearly define all marshy areas as natural so that they do not accidentally get cleared by residents as has happened in Sunbreaker Cove in the past. 5. Wooded areas must also formally be protected from clearing. 6. The boundaries to these areas then need to be appropriately signed so that all persons entering these areas are aware of their protected status. 7. Areas where threatened birds are nesting must be signed as off limits to all persons during the breeding season. 8. Page 28 point 5.2.24 of the Draft Plan states “Residential uses adjacent to agricultural areas shall incorporate transition strategies, such as increased setbacks or buffers, to reduce the impact of new residential development on existing agricultural operations.” This requirement should be applied for natural areas as well. 9. The installation of boat piers or lifts along the shores of natural areas must not be permitted. Key areas for protection include the bay in the northeast corner of the lake, where many aquatic bird species abound, loons hatch their young, and beavers exist. Given its pristine state, and the sensitivity of the wildlife in this area, it should be completely protected from intrusion by powered boats. Its shoreline should be protected as well for a depth of 100 meters from the bank. Much of the vegetation here is largely pristine and needs to be retained in this way. The land here is agricultural in nature, and any effort to rezone it into development must exclude this boundary buffer. In the summer village of Sunbreaker Cove, two small natural areas have already been defined by Alberta Environment and Parks between the boat launch and the shore along Poplar Road, and between Poplar Road and Larch Road where a peninsula of marshy terrain juts out into the lake. These areas remain after cabin owners on Poplar Road some years ago cleared out the marshy areas in front of their lots in violation of Alberta
Page | 48
Environment’s protection of the area. These existing areas must be retained. On the north boundary of the lake there is a further marshy area where bald eagles nest and have raised young for many years in the same tree nest. And the proposed survey of areas in need of protection around the full perimeter of the lake is sure to highlight more. Thank you for your efforts in undertaking this development plan. It will surely improve the living conditions of our citizens and their children in future! (N.B. On page 5, Sunbreaker Cove should be listed as in the Northeast section of the lake) o Our family has had a cabin in Sunbreaker Cove for 39 years and now has lived here year-round for 9 years. We have experienced losses in environmental riches over that time. As bird lovers we are dismayed that we can list 8 species of terrestrial birds which were regular summer residents before but now are never seen anymore. But it is reassuring to see that the Executive Summary lists “Environmentally Significant Areas Approach” as one of the four key areas of opportunity for the Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan, under which the statement is made “natural and environmentally significant areas need to be protected in efforts to conserve remaining natural areas, utilize natural areas to maintain or increase the health of the local environment, provide places for passive recreation, and to maintain the peaceful setting that exists in the area.” The public agrees and 80% indicated in a graph that they support “Conserving existing natural areas”. My family commends those who have spoken up on this issue, and the Development Plan principals who have supported it. But there is a great need to address the issue that “No definitive direction exists around identifying and protecting environmentally significant areas around Sylvan Lake.” To this end, Map 3 of the draft plan is significant in that in yellow it suggests that virtually all of the lakeshore is open for development (with the exception of a very small section of agricultural land close to Half Moon Bay). Without clear direction to protect them, our environmental opportunities are at risk of being pushed into the background under future development pressures. And once developed, such environmental areas can never be recreated. The proposal to define 3 levels of environmental review is commendable. However, this project will take considerable time and considerable funding to achieve, either or both of which may considerably delay their completion, which would also jeopardize the intended protection of these natural areas. Recent research has established that a stunning 2.9 billion birds have gone missing in Canada and the United States alone since 1970, a population decrease of 29%. A significant number of bird species have already disappeared from around the lake and we must strive to prevent further losses. If the full perimeter of the lake is to be left open to development, then there will be a great loss of bird species occurring, amongst other losses.. Consequently: 1. The only way to protect these natural areas is to define them as such before any further development around the lake is considered. Developers seeking to develop around the lake in future must be clearly aware beforehand of the existence of these natural areas so that they can avoid them. 2. To this end, we need to constitute a committee to perform a full circumnavigation of the shoreline to canvas potentially sensitive area which need to be protected. I for one will volunteer to work on that committee. The aim should be to define 10 percent of the total shoreline along the lake as protected. 3. In followup to such a study, we need to work with Alberta Environment and Parks to grant legal status to the selected natural areas. 4. In particular, we need to clearly define all marshy areas as natural so that they do not accidentally get cleared by residents as has happened in Sunbreaker Cove in the past. 5. Wooded areas must also formally be protected from clearing. 6. The boundaries to these areas then need to be appropriately signed so that all persons entering these areas are aware of their protected status. 7. Areas where threatened birds are nesting must be signed as off limits to all persons during the breeding season. 8. Page 28 point 5.2.24 of the Draft Plan states “Residential uses adjacent to agricultural areas shall Page | 49
incorporate transition strategies, such as increased setbacks or buffers, to reduce the impact of new residential development on existing agricultural operations.” This requirement should be applied for natural areas as well. 9. The installation of boat piers or lifts along the shores of natural areas must not be permitted. Key areas for protection include the bay in the northeast corner of the lake, where many aquatic bird species abound, loons hatch their young, and beavers exist. Given its pristine state, and the sensitivity of the wildlife in this area, it should be completely protected from intrusion by powered boats. Its shoreline should be protected as well for a depth of 100 meters from the bank. Much of the vegetation here is largely pristine and needs to be retained in this way. The land here is agricultural in nature, and any effort to rezone it into development must exclude this boundary buffer. In the summer village of Sunbreaker Cove, two small natural areas have already been defined by Alberta Environment and Parks between the boat launch and the shore along Poplar Road, and between Poplar Road and Larch Road where a peninsula of marshy terrain juts out into the lake. These areas remain after cabin owners on Poplar Road some years ago cleared out the marshy areas in front of their lots in violation of Alberta Environment’s protection of the area. These existing areas must be retained. On the north boundary of the lake there is a further marshy area where bald eagles nest and have raised young for many years in the same tree nest. And the proposed survey of areas in need of protection around the full perimeter of the lake is sure to highlight more. Thank you for your efforts in undertaking this development plan. It will surely improve the living conditions of our citizens and their children in future! (N.B. On page 5, Sunbreaker Cove should be listed as in the Northeast section of the lake).
o I am most concerned for future building on specific lots that are neither new subdivision nor possessing existing buildings for redevelopment. The lands in question, save for a boathouse, are bare land, existing lots that had previously had buildings on them many years ago. There are virtually no records available to my knowledge to confirm such buildings. The MASSIVE proposed setback from the waters edge makes sense for new subdivisions (particularly in Counties of Red Deer/Lacombe) however, make my particular properties, WHERE I OWN TO THE WATERS EDGE, worthless. There needs to be a category SPECIFICALLY FOR NORGLENWOLD properties where there is a reasonable setback permitted. The current policies are workable and flexible to address the unique lot sizes and configurations without neutralizing properties by negating any building envelope. I don't feel that the County of Red Deer or Lacombe has any idea what a serious problem this is--this is very valuable property and residents will not be happy with a loss of value.
o Sylvan lake is not a town of all seasons, its a town of no reason. 1 major population no,boat launch town should develop water slide property for a launch site and a floating marina, rent slips by the day, week, or summer. parking could be off site. This would make the beach part of the town more accessible and viable
o Shared services -- No indication/discussion of the increasing costs and future new services likely driven by this idp. Needs closer linkage between costs and user pay at the taxpayer - municipality level and Region - municipality level. o The concern for the environmental damage by septic fields currently in use in the areas unserviced by the regional wastewater line is not addressed. Until the use of septic fields is banned in the watershed area I do not believe the environmental issues or infrastructure waste water line management are not given the priority required to ensure any progress on the waste water line and protection of the environment of the
Page | 50
watershed area. I am surprised and disappointed to find the Recreation policies of the area so narrowly focused on a trail system and a boat launch facilities. o (1)Creating natural, not be developed areas on the lake. For anyone who has lived in this area long enough you will have witnessed the process of how developers operate. A few examples: When a condominium project was proposed on Lakeshore the rules were relaxed because the developer convinced council the project was not viable with a certain number of floors so the developer was granted an easement. When the purchaser of the former marina was required to give access to public launching the town was satisfied with the proposal put forward by the developer. We see how the lack of vision resulted in the developer to basically render it impossible for the public to launch a boat at this facility. When the town was offered an opportunity to purchase the old rail line that runs through town for $1.00 they declined. Which led to a developer to attempt to turn this "real estate" into a full scale residential development. It was only due to an enormous outpouring of public support that the project was stopped and the land was saved and kept as a recreational area as well as a corridor for wildlife to move through the town. The irony of this situation was that the town ended up paying a much much larger sum to the railway company to purchase this land. The point I am trying to illustrate is developers are somewhat relentless. Their interest is in profitability and nothing else. So it is the obligation of a organization such as this to seize the opportunity to secure as much of the natural areas on and around this lake and in this area and designate it as off limits to development. To protect as much of whats left in a natural state so that nature can thrive in what little areas are still somewhat pristine. Although no moment in history is not a good moment to seize this opportunity, I believe this may, at this very moment be one of the best chances to create these areas. An economic slowdown gives the world a chance to take a breath and regain some perspective and analyze things. Additionally the appetite to develop may be at a point where resistance to creating natural areas is low. 2)Waste water infrastructure. I am not surprised that this issue is not getting more attention. Almost everyone who is directly affected by this process is quite happy to dismiss this and continue to pour their sewer into the ground. No one wants to shoulder any of the cost to fix this problem. So if their is no money to fix put in this system then it should be legislated that every property that is functioning in this manner be required to remove a septic field and replace it with a septic tank. This will stop sewer from slowly leaching either into the lake or into our groundwater supply. I realize that this is not the best environmental solution in that trucks will still be required to haul the waste water but it is certainly a better solution than what is going on right now.
Page | 51
Appendix C: Question 10 Verbatim Responses
What about the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan stands out the most for you? Please explain.
o Site 5P + 2F boat launch is much needed, great site as long as the RR22 is paved to accommodate increased traffic to the launch
o FULLY SUPPORT getting the lake lots all tied into municipal sewer! Identifying a trail system around the lake would be wonderful but lots of hurdles. But a trail (cycling) to Red Deer would be wonderful as well
o Collaboration & Plan & Implementation
o The lack of thought and close mindedness for the lack of lake access for boats to be launched! My community purchased a prime location AKA the old waterslide location that is only ever used during the late spring and summer months for a single weekly event. A farmer’s market – that can easily relocated to any numerous town owned locations! This in my opinion will be just one of the many solutions to revive lakeshore drive and bring back the draw to our community that once was. NOTE: The old SL waterslide building could also be leased out to local businesss and/or entrepreneurs.
o The setbacks as proposed are unreasonable. Why potentially make lakefront lots unusable and worthless. A boat launch is absolutely essential. Why not put one where the waterslide use to be?
o Boat launch should be priority Town of Sylvan @ old Water Slide site, not miles from Town Fuel + supply
o 30 meter set back is unrealistic
o Great plans for shared resources – water, recreation, etc
o The collaboration amongst the parties should be commended.
o I like the annexation is in motion for Norglenwold. Maintaining a natural buffer where these is wild life is a wise move. I like that the watershed is a priority. I like that keeping natural environment pathways but no motorised vehicles is being considered. Access to the lake in summer villages needs to be reviewed as what happens is people put a dock and way too many boats in this area - lake access should not allow people to use this as boat storage. Homeowners on either side are greatly affected by this. We pay a lot in taxes for the privilege of lake front and to have 5 boats strewn by a dock doesn't make sense.
o Scope.
o The 30 m setback. Im not sure how any future development would be able to proceed in theses areas.
o The fact that you believe the Province will give up authority over the bed and shore and access to "crown land" There is DLO owners on the lake that need to be consulted and worked with. The new mooring policy is going to change that as well.
o Land use and how you guys will inevitable mess it all up anyways.
o A gas station on the lake was not brought up once. We need to be able to fuel up our boats without using jerry cans!
Page | 52
o Regional collaboration on major infrastructure and land use planning to ensure orderly development, hopefully with a limit on maximum land use for more high density housing.
o The recreational plan.
o That only 30% or resondants are in favor of increased motorized boat access (does this mean most want less motorized boat access?) How is this addressed in the plan. o Proposing additional boat launch sites when there should be more concern with the capacity of the lake to support the increased motor boat traffic this will encourage. o Nothing o Cooperation
o I think that it's important for municipalities to work together and collaborate on various issues -- and for different counties to be able to get along with one another. I suppose that the wastewater plan is the most concerning for me. It's necessary, but each cabin owner will likely end up paying far more than what's been proposed by the time the whole project has been implemented.
o Commercial on Rainy Creek road. Still disagree with planned recreation just outside Sunbreaker. There is no beach there and will just be invading ours including vehicles as too far to carry beach gear o Commercial on Rainy Creek road. Still disagree with planned recreation just outside Sunbreaker. There is no beach there and will just be invading ours including vehicles as too far to carry beach gear o Commercial on Rainy Creek road. Still disagree with planned recreation just outside Sunbreaker. There is no beach there and will just be invading ours including vehicles as too far to carry beach gear
o Sewage. Great the wasteplan is in place and running and all municipalities are on board
o The possibility that all the parties could actually work together for the good of Sylvan Lake and its surrounding populations.
o On shared municipal services there is no mention of Drinking water only waste water.(One of largest necessity to sustain human life.) Currently my well water is undrinkable. How do you supply water to this population without taking that into consideration? o N/A o New development setback requirements. o The statement 10.2.13 b. "For all other considerations, the policies of the Sylvan Lake / Red Deer County Intermunicipal Development Plan (2011) should take precedence." Other than for environment and water shed issues the above statement prevails. I think this statement is very interesting as it basically says to me that the 2011 document will supersede this document for any land use related to the lands adjacent to the villages of Jarvis Bay and Norlglenwold. It begs the question: Should there be a planning document where the four entities with a vested interest (i.e. Town of Sylvan Lake, County of Red Deer, Villages of Norglenwold and Jarvis Bay) are part of the planning for land bordering their areas.
o All of the summer villages and counties are working together in a thoughtful and strategic way. Kudos for the effort by all these including the town!
Page | 53
o The motorized boat launch at 5P is of greatest interest as this has been an urgent need for many years, primarily to protect the lake from invasive species (zebra mussels) but also to control launch traffic and provide proper parking for boat trailers and vehicles in a location far enough away from private residences.
o I like the idea of having a plan but feel there is no need to identify zonings that may not come into effect for 20 years.
o There was not enough consideration given to high density development causing environmental issues, threats to wildlife and infringing on existing properties. There was a lack of urgency to the development of a boat launch where there would be mandatory inspection of all boats to prevent invasive species from entering the lake waters and ruining its health. More consideration to maintaining a natural and healthy environment where the lake can be enjoyed without jeopardizing it is needed.
o that the town seems to want nothing to do with providing boat access to the lake, yet they want the tourists and all their dollars!!!
o I find it interesting that the issues relevant to summer village residents including high density development in close proximity to the lake, the lack of attention to environmental issues, the lack of timelines for the development of a boat launch and the lack of attention to the implications of 30 m setbacks have been ignored in the plan.
o Section 7.0 Recreation In particular, Section 7.2.4 - 7.2.9 Recreation Boat Access and a Coordinated lake Access Management Plan. What we are doing now has been very problematic for many years (and tears) for environmental and safety reasons, virtually no controls of liquor and drugs on the lake, lack of any controls of invasive species, rampant noise pollution and lack of controls on hours.
o The 30-meter setback seems unrealistic since some existing lots would be too small for development. Existing lots need to be grandfathered.
o Planning for protection of the entire watershed, rather than just the immediate shoreline is very positive. Looking at the current problems on some other Alberta lakes with respect to nutrient enrichment, suggests that this aspect of the plan is very forward thinking. I support the suggestion of a walking trail around the lake, however I expect that with the existing shoreline developments this may be a near impossible objective to realize.
o Development of a full trail around the lake that supports pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
o I feel strongly about the trails outside of the Sylvan Lake town. The county residence would enjoy having trails to safely walk/ski/snowshoe on.
o a lot of work has been put into this plan
o These IDPs are always a complex issue simply due to the nature of the document(s). It is obvious that thought has been given to moving forward with this, but refinement is required. o It was interesting to see how much the town of Sylvan Lake wants to develop within the next 20 years as stated without any detailed planning. I acknowledge that there may be a need to develop additional lands beyond the 20 years but they should at the very least be identified as potential long term developments
Page | 54
after there is more detailed planning for their impact on the natural environment surrounding the lake and the summer villages.
o I feel that the boat launches are required due to the town closing theirs. Alberta is blessed with lots of things but water is not one of them. We need to have sylvan open to everyone to enjoy
o Please see comments under point 9.
o Please see comments under point 9.
o I find it most interesting that the Counties of Red Deer and Lacombe appear to have zero interest or empathy for the plight of specific landowners in the Summer Village of Norglenwold. This subdivision is unique--not one size fits all. So unrealistic. It is callous bullying to continue with the plan in its current state.
o here we are in 2019 doing a comprehensive plan and sylvan and red deer county are hanging onto a 2011 agreement. I particularly find offensive the mention of high density near the lake on this old agreement without a clear vision for the future. The 39 metre setback should only apply to new projects and all the old vacant lots and cabins that build under the old bylaws should be grand fathered. all boat launches should have full supervision ( if anyone really cares about the lake) o The Questionable accuracy that will or can come from the omnibus questions being used in this survey. o The extensive focus of the development of a motorized boat launch in comparison to other aspects of the plan. o There are significant areas of this document that show a well thought out ideology. There are also areas that seem to be very vague and reek of the potential for manipulation.But overall I am impressed with the work that has went into this process. Nothing is perfect. The one item that I find somewhat strange is this desire for a trail all the way around the Lake. This ideology flies directly in the face of creating natural areas. I can't understand this desire. It seems t me to be someones legacy idea. I would like to see the explanation for a path all around the lake? is it so someone can walk around the lake. I am sure that the first year it was completed there would be a number of participants take up this challenge. I am convinced that on year two there would be less than a handful of people doing the "walk around the lake" trail. The big problem I have with this is if there is a desire to to create natural areas on the lake then it seems wrong to put a path through these natural reserves.
Page | 55
Appendix D: Question 11 Verbatim Responses
Are there any areas or topics that you feel have not been addressed in the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan? Please explain.
o What & how much development & boat traffic can the lake take until damage is reversable? We live in Village of Birchcliff. We like to [not legible] in Sylvan Lake, however we have stop that due to paying for parking.
o Infrastructure, roads, access, overpasses, etc.
o POSSIBILITY OF THE OLD WATERSLIDE LOCATION TO BE UTILISED AS A FUTURE BOAT LAUNCH SITE. Let’s optimize this site and others like it to its fullest.
o Sylvan did a horrible job planning their town in the past and LOST Focus of what they Town Really Was. So they should NOT ruin any more planning
o You purchased the waterslide lands as Town! Now buck up and build the boat launch there or retire as your Town Council is out of touch with the people of Sylvan Lake
o 30 meter setback is unrealistic
o Great plans for shared resources – water, recreation, etc
o I think that the municipality should ensure an environmental reserve around the whole lake, including the waterfront properties.
o A gasoline fuel station should be included in the plan. The town has fallen down on this when permits given to the Marina owners for business operation. Environmentally someone has to take responsibility for current fuelling and potential problems of gasoline containers.
o Not sure if this falls under this plan but you need to implement a bylaw prohibiting TENTS on the main beach. This is ridiculous that you allow people to put up full tents on a public beach. A path around the lake cannot be lake front everywhere? That is not possible. However a path near the lake is a good idea. I like that you will start to restrict where people can moor their boats.
o Affects of calcium chloride leech into ground water / runoff into lake water.
o No
o I think that the municipality should ensure an environmental reserve around the whole lake, including the waterfront properties.
o Gas station on the lake for boaters
o Lake access in the sense of limiting the number of launches, priority to develop site 5 on South shore, phase out launches in residential areas.
o because they are outside of the jurisdiction of the plan, use of bed and shore through mooring and dock development has not been addressed. also noise control and use of the lake.
o How many lots would be made non-usable for habitation with a 30 meter setback? Page | 56
o No
o Fresh water pipeline. At some point in the future, after the waste water pipeline a fresh water pipeline should be considered. o People who live in the towns, e.g. Sylvan Lake, Eckville, etc., have different issues from the people who live in the Summer Villages or on rural acreages. I've noticed that the townspeople tend to resent those of us who only live in our cabins for five months of the year -- and some of us for only a few weeks during the summer. However, we do pay our taxes, and we value the stewardship of the land. o No boat launch paid for by county of Red Deer, only Lacombe stepping up? o No boat launch paid for by county of Red Deer, only Lacombe stepping up? o No boat launch paid for by county of Red Deer, only Lacombe stepping up? o No o See #9 o See marked-up copy that should have been able to be sent as an attachment to this survey
o Water supply, Wild life, fish and Noise pollution. Wildlife in the area will be greatly affect. There are numerous animals that currently reside on my property. Deer, coyotes, Fox, porcupines, rabbits, bears, cougars migrating birds. Have noticed a significant reduction in fish in the last year. Also an increased sediment in run off.
o The 30m setback is ideal in theory however some existing buildings on private property do not meet this requirement. Should these building need to be rebuilt they may be in contravention and should be exempt. Since the inception of the Summer Villages on Sylvan Lake, shoreline erosion has changed the distance to the water. It will continue to change and affect the 30m setback rule. Some consideration must be given for existing buildings on private property and the future developement of them.
o N/A
o Noise on the water o Process of annexation of Norglenwold and ramifications, protection of quiet enjoyment of existing lakefront cottage owners
o Most residents and users of Sylvan Lake would agree that the preservation of the quality of water is paramount. Protection against invasive species through controlled motor boat launching is critical. Delaying the creation of a proper boat launch west of the Boy Scout Camp is a huge concern. This document should stress the importance of the expeditious delivery of this facility and the subsequent closure of un-controlled motor boat launching.
o There has been no mention of the environmental screw up of loss of gasoline fuel station in Sylvan Lake townsite. This an environmental concern and must be addressed in land use somewhwere. Maybe the new boat launch on range road 23 could accomodate a fueling station. The town has fallen down on this item when the marina received it's permit of operation. This is a hazardous situation that must be addressed asap.
Page | 57
o I support a nominal motorized boat launch fee to offset some of the capital costs and maintenance expenses of the 5P Boat Launch location. Perhaps the location should be manned in high season for boat inspection and collection of launch fees
o Time frame for closure of unmanned informal boat launches which should be addressed immediately. Solutions for moorage. I understand that the municipalities do not control the lake but why on earth do we not have the province at the table as well?
o How essential it is to have a timeline for a plan to address protection of the environment, the health of the lake. This is urgent and we require the boat launch as soon as possible to help address these issues. Little consideration has been given to the fact that existing property owners purchased these properties for enjoyment of a healthy lake and a peaceful environment.
o My concerns are: New boat launch and gas station priority - Boat inspections for invasive species - Policing the water - Set backs on development to remain the same from the water - Trail access either by road or trail around the lake - DO NOT want high density homes in our area o The health of the lake is not adequately addressed, nor is the involvement of the Provincial and Federal Government, as they control the waters, as well as the closure of informal accesses (I believe) o The lack of opportunity for consultation with non-resident owners, lack of immediate plan to protect the environment by closing uncontrolled access and lack of protection for wildlife and flora and health of the lake and whatever else you think is important. As long term owners/residents of the lake, the preservation and health of this lake community is of utmost importance to our family. We treasure this resource and recreational area for the unique qualities that it offers. Alberta has few lake communities - protecting this community is imperative and urgent. o Noise Pollution on the lake. Considering our common and legislated laws on noise, Sylvan Lake remains the wild west. o ESA Environmentally Significant Areas IDENTIFIED to date should be included for review by the public. o I am concerned about the proposal to consider closure of certain road allowances that currently provide public access to the lake. Particularly in regard to continued provision of public access for winter ice fishing, some of these road allowances need to be kept open. Water quality protection through restriction of new confined feeding operations in the watershed is particularly good. However, some consideration should be given to regulating manure spreading during frozen ground conditions within the watershed, as has been done in some other jurisdictions. o Curious about Range Road 12 and highway 11. When driving west on highway 11, the turn off lane (if turning north) is not large enough or long enough. Trying to slow down to turn you are almost driving in the ditch and a lot of the time there is two lanes of traffic driving at a fast pace so trying to slow down and move over to turn can be dangerous. o An immediate and specific timeline for opening a safe boat launch, with inspection guidelines for all boats entering the lake to make sure no invasive species can be introduced. Also plans to immediately close uncontrolled access to the lake, to protect the lake shore at those points of access as well as the environment. The safe procurement of gas for boats must also be dealt with as soon as possible to avoid further pollution of the lake by unsafe methods.
Page | 58
o An immediate and specific timeline for opening a safe boat launch, with inspection guidelines for all boats entering the lake to make sure no invasive species can be introduced. Also plans to immediately close uncontrolled access to the lake, to protect the lake shore at those points of access as well as the environment. The safe procurement of gas for boats must also be dealt with as soon as possible to avoid further pollution of the lake by unsafe methods.
o Not sure at this time.
o refer to #9 above o i feel all topics have been addressed o I am very concerned with the 30 m set back. My feel is this is pushing for a no building environment. o Please see comments under point 9. o Please see comments under point 9. o I feel that there is insufficient focus on environmental health and biodiversity of both the lake and the larger watershed. The health of the lake needs to be a priority and riparian areas that are ecologically sensitive need to be identified and management plans put into place to protect their long-term integrity. Ecological integrity MUST take priority over development opportunities. This plan should be looking at possible properties around the lake that can be purchased/otherwise obtained for municipal or public parks/ecological reserves. o Please see my prior comments. *I firmly believe that the individual municipalities must be allowed discretion in order to make this plan viable. In its current state it is useless to me. Address the uniqueness of the SV of Norglenwold for starters o this plan should address and identify the trails and future bike and walking trails around the lake o No real recognition of the unique aspects of the "SummerVillage" character, differences between the those 5 summer villages and between "summer" and full time residents.
Page | 59
Appendix E: Question 12 Verbatim Responses
Is there anything else you would like us to know?
o No
o Build up instead of out
o NB: Please respect the value of the Summer Village municipalities. They are a very efficient form of local government
o Leave the planning to someone else. You have purchased the Water Slide lands with parking lot [no legible]. Anybody with ½ a brain would be putting the boat launch right there!
o Yes. If you want something done right don’t let Sylvan Council have anything to do with it. They killed the downtown and continue on with their stupidity. Brainless wonders they are. If they did not like out Town and community then they should have moved elsewhere themselves.
o I’m intrigued to note an annexation area over part of our property. It would probably be good to get more information on what this could mean for future planning for our site.
o Section 5.2.6 does not address abandonment of oil and gas wells that are nearby. We are noticing natural gas in water wells. We should have a setback of one kilometre or more from developed areas for any oil/gas wells.
o NO Tents on the public beach.
o no
o Power boat launch and mooring rules and/or locations need to identified and long term plans developed with dates
o Bureaucrats make me sick.
o There needs to be affordable access to the lake now, paying $100 to launch and not being able to purchase fuel is ridiculous for a lake with so many residents, the towns/villages/county need to step up and make this a priority now not in a 5 year plan from now
o Good work to all involved!
o Province should have been a partner in the development plan. disconnect between municipal objectives and actions of provincial government particularly with mooring and dock development and boat and ATV noise as it affects the peaceful enjoyment of the area. The noise from boats and atvs would not be tolerated by residents within the town of sylvan lake, why should they be tolerated by people residing on the lake
o No
o We need to take the pressure off Sunbreaker Cove by developing other boat launches. The number of boats being launched there take away our enjoyment of living there. I go down there every weekend to pick up garbage, empty liquor bottles and cigarette butts.
Page | 60
o You guys are doing great. Thank you for the hard work and focus. o As far as the general plans for the Summer Villages are concerned, let's not change things too much. We value the natural environment, the peace and quiet, the quality of the lake water, the trails, the lack of street lights, the lack of loud motors from boats and vehicles, the wildlife and birds, the trees and plants, the rural atmosphere, and the camaraderie of our neighbours. We don't want the Summer Villages to become overdeveloped, crowded, lacking trees and green spaces, and paved over like the towns and cities we have escaped from! We also want the neighbouring farmers and rural acreage owners to feel welcome to use our beaches, walk our trails, enjoy our natural areas, and to fish and picnic along the lakeshore. But we feel that we have enough parking lots, boat launches, day use areas, provincial parks, overflow parking areas, and lake access spots already. We also don't want our taxes to increase, or to receive services that we really don't require. Please remember that the name, "Sylvan" lake says it all. Let's keep it forested, tranquil, peaceful, and well-managed, for future generations to enjoy. o We'll done, looks good o This survey is superficial and possibly meant to collect a mood of residents or make the plan developers feel good. It has no ability to capture in-depth comments. One can select thumbs up, neutral or thumbs down. Superficial. Can't even print the completed survey.! o Are there any studies that have been done on how population increase will effect the water quality of existing wells. Should they implement a proper water treatment plant before approving this development ? o no o N/A o The survey did not allow me to enter comments for questions 9, 10, and 11. So here they are: High density residential should not be allowed where the development is in behind a Summer Village; i.e. where there is a Summer Village between the development and the lake and there is no direct lake access for the development. This type of area should only allow low density development. Also, the lake needs more formal boat access points that can be monitored and controlled to ensure invasive species cannot impact lake health. Informal boat launches at the end of gravel roads should be shut down because they cannot be effectively monitored or controlled. o A large segment of direct input from affected residents is lost during the "off season". Many summer residents live too far away to attend open houses such as this. My recommendation would be to host important community engagement activity (such as this one) during the summer. o Section 5.2.6 could say something about the AER and the oil and gas wells within less than one kilometre of the lake and /or water wells . Natural gas is seeping into residential water wells now which suggests these nearby oil and gas wells should be abandoned properly! o Lakefront residents have paid a significant premium, both in capital cost and property taxes, for their quiet enjoyment of their property. While understanding the increased pressure for public use of the lake, I hope recognition of “quiet enjoyment” is maintained as this Plan goes forward. The very reason I purchased my lakefront property years ago was to live in a quiet, natural environment...avoiding a busy, over-developed & over-governed city-type atmosphere. I hope that can be respected and maintained in the coming years, despite the pressure for further development.
Page | 61
o We need to have controlled access to the lake to ensure proper boat inspection is done prior to launch. Otherwise we will have unwanted species like many other lakes in Canada. o We do also own property in both the Town and Red Deer County. Only one option was allowed but I think it would reflect that we have an interest in the whole area and not just the summer village where we reside. o There has been a lack of opportunity for consultation with non-residents and a lack of an immediate plan to protect the environment by closing uncontrolled lake access. More focus needs to be on the protection of wildlife and flora, as well as the health of the lake. As long-term owners/residents of the property surrounding the lake, the preservation and health of this lake community is of utmost importance to our family. We treasure this resource and recreational area for its unique qualities and peaceful environment. Alberta has so few lake communities, protecting this community is imperative and urgent. Thank you. o Day and Long term moorage for boats needs to be addressed. Dog access to the water is also not addressed ... if the town refuses to address this, once again those people are coming to the summer villages to gain access. There are not proper services in place for this, nor monitoring of it. The town seems to continually push whatever they don't want to deal with, onto the summer villages. These are town residents or tourists that leave the town boundaries to get what they want in the summer villages (launch their boats, let their dogs swim). This is a Town problem, not a summer village problem!!! o It is imperative that the plan reflect the needs of the community. We urge you to attend to the issues identified here before the plan moves forward. o I could not get my printer to print what I submitted. Could some body print my responses and forward them to me. o Invasive species can only be prevented by monitored boat launch sites. 2. A trail around the lake sounds nice. 3. End all septic fields near lake now. 4 Boat fueling is an obvious environmental threat but considered outside the scope of this plan and I consider that just plain stupid. Planners and elected officials need to get this into the plan. o As long term owners/residents of the lake, the preservation and health of this lake is of utmost importance to our family. We treasure this resource and recreational area for the unique qualities it offers. Alberta has few lake communities, making it imperative and urgent that this community is protected. We are disappointed with the lack of opportunity for consultation with non-residents on these important matters. Also frustrating and disappointing is the lack of an immediate plan to protect the environment by closing uncontrolled access to the lake by boats. Invasive species can be introduced at any time when there is no supervised access. Use of uncontrolled access points also damages the environment. We are also concerned that there is no safe way to procure gas for boats, allowing unsafe practices to proliferate, once again endangering the health of the lake itself as well as the flora and fauna in the area. If we do not protect the environment, the community will suffer as well as the lake itself. o As long term owners/residents of the lake, the preservation and health of this lake is of utmost importance to our family. We treasure this resource and recreational area for the unique qualities it offers. Alberta has few lake communities, making it imperative and urgent that this community is protected. We are disappointed with the lack of opportunity for consultation with non-residents on these important matters. Also frustrating and disappointing is the lack of an immediate plan to protect the environment by closing Page | 62
uncontrolled access to the lake by boats. Invasive species can be introduced at any time when there is no supervised access. Use of uncontrolled access points also damages the environment. We are also concerned that there is no safe way to procure gas for boats, allowing unsafe practices to proliferate, once again endangering the health of the lake itself as well as the flora and fauna in the area. If we do not protect the environment, the community will suffer as well as the lake itself.
o The trail system around the lake has not been explained in enough detail to allow proper evaluation for comments. Is it scheduled to run in green areas behind current property lines, or is it to run along the bank, potentially cutting into existing lots? If so, this will negatively impact property values. If this is the model, what plan is there to financially compensate lake front property owners? As to setback on new developments, 30 metres seems quite a bit. Although protecting the lake is very important, is this a workable distance? In looking at the description of the Top Bank, it appears there is no way to realistically determine this without a new Real Property Report. This is a large expense. It may be okay in a new development plan structure, but is it realistic under a redevelopment scheme on a lot with an existing structure that is to be redeveloped? Should some form of “Grandfathering” be allowed? The push to have regulated boat launches is good move. This is critical to our lake’s ecosystem and future. Also, in regard to foot access, the move toward a limited but well thought out access points while avoiding less that’s favourable road allowance sites is a good idea as well. Thanks for your work! o I appreciate the need for an IDP but it is essential properly consult and listen to residents. I had been advised that a draft plan would be forthcoming in September but now it appears that there is a rush to get it done. If it is worth doing the IDP, isn't it worth doing it right? o Job well done. o I believe more efforts need to be made to get more feed back on this plan. o I appreciate that much very good work has gone into this draft development plan, and much of it is well thought out. As indicated, my concern is that there is not enough substantial protection for environmental areas and the lack of such specific protections needs to be addressed before more development occurs. o I appreciate that much very good work has gone into this draft development plan, and much of it is well thought out. As indicated, my concern is that there is not enough substantial protection for environmental areas and the lack of such specific protections needs to be addressed before more development occurs. o I find that this is likely a moot discussion and activity given the current provincial government's plan to scrap the mandatory IDP's. What a ginormous waste of money, resources and time. Our particular SV has existed successfully without this IDP and with very few exceptions landowners are very sensitive to maintaining the lakeshore knowing full well that a healthy lakeshore and lake can only mean secure land values for this and future generations. o critical that people that have been paying property taxes for years rights are protected. sylvan should make monumental changes to bring back the vibrant bustling community that it once was. get away from the big box mentality and think of what kind of town people would like to visit or live in o 2 most immediate lake environment issues are threat of invasive species ie muscles, etc. and physical shoreline erosion ( in large part from wake boats creating excessive wave and unnatural wave action/direction). This idp seeks jurisdiction over all the Sylvan basin lands including tributaries but not the
Page | 63
Lake proper! The current idp process fails to address access controls. This is a serious shortcoming in view of the significance of the potential impact on the lake.
Page | 64
Appendix F: Email Verbatim Responses
I have studied the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan as well as the open house “information signs” shown at the open house on November 20, 2019. While much of what is shown in the plan is a great improvement to the disjointed previous development by the major municipalities, there are several comments we would want to submit for your review. These comments are included as a mark-up to the draft Sylvan Lake Intermunicipal Development Plan and are attached.
This draft plan is a step in the right direction! It needs some refinements and some more detail; however, it has come a long way from what was used in the distant and not too distant past. To have all of the municipal and provincial governments work together for development of Sylvan Lake would be a huge step forward.
Please confirm that you will include our comments with others collected during the open house or by other means of input.
Thanks for the opportunity to include or comments and discussion ______
Please consider the following comments related to the current Draft SLIDP.
Our Village faces significant cost increases from accelerating regional assessments – driving ever higher property taxes. Village and individual property owners expenses will further accelerate by untold numbers of costly items/requirements evolving from the SLIDP!
I believe a larger tax base and DCC’s (development cost charges /impost fees for new lots) are the only tools council has to mitigate some future onerous tax increases. This requires controlling and utilizing the maximum # of connections/lots as per Norglenwolds’ Sewer Capacity and the Water Study. Council’s control and management of these numbers should drive the timing, densities, character and sense of community of “our village”. Increased lots/population will optimize (reduce) the average physical & administrative expenses per taxpayer. Council’s control and allocation of the limited number of connections to the extra land annexed should maintain the character of Norglenwold. It is critical summer villages fight to maintain an amount of independence – opting out/not withstanding clause. Current IDP Draft puts a whole new senior layer of demands including direct and indirect costs. Cooperation between jurisdictions is important. However, it is critical municipalities retain control over their projects, priorities, timing and costs. Building, zoning, amenities, etc are among many best left to the democratically local elected.
Lake Setbacks of 30m are excessive for our developed and vacant existing Norglenwold properties/lots adjoining the lake. The only reason for requiring an increased setback should be lot specific. If sloughing/instability or documented lake pollution is evident then remediation opportunities need to be examined. In such cases a building permit should be subject to engineers determining appropriate actions including setbacks. The problem with existing setback requirements has not been the distance but rather the activity, equipment and construction Page | 65
on the shore, bank and set back. The root problem is the difficulty of successful enforcement! Increasing setbacks only creates a larger surface for offenders to destroy or degrade. The root problem of enforcement will remain! Other issues are:
1. A new build (with greater setbacks than existing houses on either side) would have a very limited number degrees of view – a tunnel effect constrained by houses either side and fwd of new build.
2. Greater setbacks only result in extensive lawns between the house and bank escarpment. Lawns get extensive treatment of herbicides and fertilizers which run directly into the lake with little or none of the benefit of natural filtering which occurs to a degree with lawns on the back road side.
3. 30 meters is a very significant incursion of “property rights” in cases purchased 60 – 100yrs. ago or more! Fix the problem with more reasonable setbacks, rigidly enforced in existing (grandfathered) subdivisions. How many (#’s and %) of all our existing lake front properties will become Non-Conforming with the imposition of the 30m setback? Seems pretty major. It should be significant enough to warrant advising all individual affected property owners of their pending change in status. Invite their comments and agreement on the change. Tributaries are important and need protecting; however an automatic 30m setback seems an excessive incursion. This effectively creates a 60m+ barrier between North and South Norglenwold. This creates both service inefficiencies/costs and polarization within a community. The draft includes conditional reductions to a minimum 12m setback. All tributaries have a host of unique characteristics – distance/length, flow, soil types, bank elevations, degree of meandering, existing cover/vegetation, etc. I suggest the standard setback should be 12m on each side. If specific problems along the tributary are identified which can’t be mediated then increase setbacks accordingly at those specific sites..
Obviously much time, effort and money is going into this IDP Plan. I believe the timing of the public consultation process needs to be questioned as it relates to validity issues. Over 62 % of jurisdictions/partners affected are SUMMER VILLAGES and of those over 75% of the population (2016 stats) are summer residents only. Many live hundreds to thousands of kilometres distant at this time of year. In addition many full time residents are away for extended and regular vacations at the time Open Houses, surveying and winter/spring report finalization. The end report could be a badly flawed, undemocratic exercise. The time of year and limited advance public notice will likely result in a non-representative sample of owners. and residents. Not one but both public consultation have been conducted at sub-optimal times! Validity should be the major consultants concern in any research design. It appears “summer” as it relates to a major segment of affected taxpayers have been overlooked or ignored.
Regional Trails: I believe the number 1 priority should be to support and develop major point to point trails ie commercial centers Sylvan to Red Deer, Benalto, Bentley, etc using the flatest terrain and existing right of ways. Best examples are discontinued and functioning RR beds and road right of ways (shoulders or construct in existing ditch/shoulder area) to create the major trail network.
Municipal Trails should be determined, developed and maintained by each community. Internal trails and routes to meet their individual needs. In our case a combinations of paths, walk ways and streets/roads works well facilitated by limited through traffic and modest controlled speeds. The existing situation of walkers and bikers
Page | 66
provides a “sense of community” that a “formal trail” would not engender. In the future when/if the old Palmer property between Norglenwold and the old Hwy 11 is developed there could be provision for a trail running west from RR15 through to the next RR west. ______
Here is the Sylvan Lake IDP 2020 document review that I promised when we met at the project open house in Sylvan Lake. As an overview, I found the report to be comprehensive, with strengths and weaknesses, but too long and cumbersome for use as an Intermunicipal Development Plan working reference. If it is intended to be an IDP 2020 progress report I would be more tolerant.
Introduction Most of the IDP 2020 land area is either forested or it is in agricultural, farming and/or ranching, production. As an overview, this report addresses that reality inadequately. Yet those lands are the diffuse sources of nutrients and contaminants that are transported in surface and subsurface water flows into Sylvan Lake. That is where eutrophication risk starts. Alberta Agriculture knows all about that.
If the Sylvan Lake itself had a voice in the creation of this IDP, it would dismiss the concerns that inconvenience municipalities and their land development plans. Nature and its natural processes control the State of the Sylvan Lake watershed and that of the larger Intermunicipal Development Plan area. All those factors have been addressed in this series of nine articles published in the Sylvan Lake News through the summer of 2019.
This IDP 2020 report does not present evidence that a prerequisite strength of the participating municipalities is an understanding of watershed fundamentals. There is room for improvement to demonstrate how that deficiency will be corrected or compensated for.
Scope of the IDP 2020 The word "Stewardship" is not used in the Municipal Government Act. Appropriation of the word, a non-MGA word, as an aid to portray the intent of this IDP without a clear definition of its scope has potential to confuse readers. Which watershed is the target of this plan? There are three within the proposed IDP area:
Environment Section 6 does not present evidence that municipalities understand the fundamental mechanisms of transport of nutrients and contaminants from the land into either the prized Sylvan Lake watershed or the pre-nutrient- enriched Blindman and Medicine River watersheds.
The first subsections 6.2.1. to 6.2.15 read like boilerplate cut-and-paste content from some other source document. Are all partner municipalities committed to these subsections? While the setback principles make sense, in the real world of the core Sylvan Lake watershed of $3.5 billion value, there are few locations where new 30m setbacks can be established or be useful. Knowledgeable planners should already know those zones.
Section 6.2 Policies seems overkill to me. The hydrological Sylvan Lake watershed perimeter within the plan area is critical to defining the threat to the eutrophic state of Sylvan Lake. The mechanisms and flow pathways by Page | 67
which nutrients and contaminants reach the lake define the watershed, lake, and eutrophication lottery risk. An understanding of the water balance that naturally splits incoming precipitation of about 500 mm per year into surface runoff, infiltrated groundwater, and massive evaporative and transpiration losses is central to environmental planning and management. So is monitoring key environmental variables, none of which are proposed in the report, even to protect partner municipalities against liabilities which they themselves might create. It is good to know that partner municipalities are dedicated to the components and practice of watershed stewardship. Assessments and setbacks are important tools for understanding and micro-modifying the watershed hydrology. However, it is just tinkering. Empirically, the Sylvan Lake watershed has self-protected the lake from eutrophication for a more than a century. We have four decades of recorded water quality and precipitation history to confirm that. The outstanding question for the IDP is about how future urban expansion within the hydrological boundary will disrupt a relatively stable state of the watershed.
Economics and Governance I was surprised to find no substantial reference to financial relationships including cost-sharing and co-funding of projects of multi-party interest. Even I have presented evidence that this IDP is a consortium of mismatched municipal partners. As I live in the TSL, the dominant player in all categories of municipal data, I will not be pleased to find TSL taxpayers subsidizing others especially when the allocated votes favor minor players. The deck is stacked against the TSL.
Dispute Resolution As I have recommended increased attention to real human as opposed to municipalinstitutional accountability, MGA-style, I offer this suggestion for resolving disputes when in an extreme case, your process is not successful: “Mayors of municipalities unable to resolve differences may schedule a duel to be held as a fund-raiser for the IDP account and as a display for public and community entertainment on the Sylvan Lake Pier.”
Please let me know if you have questions about my contribution.
Note that I submit this review as an individual and not on behalf of the Sylvan Lake Watershed Stewardship Society as there is no time for debate of its merits.
I have BCC’d others with whom I have spoken on the subject of the IDP 2020. ______SYLVAN LAKE INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELPOMENT PLAN: FEEDBACK There are a number of topics that were not addressed in the Draft Package or that were addressed and that I disagree with or feel that could/should be modified. They are:
The Sylvan Lake focus: The desire to develop an IDP for the areas around the Lake should be based on Lake focused development. Higher Density residential should be focused around a Town Center where City/Town functions are provided to the residents, not around the Lake. The usage of such services should be funded on a user pay basis or possibly an area funding support system. The primary focus should include the usage, preservation and management of the Lake and any near Lake developments.
Page | 68
The Management of the Lake, the water body, should be focused on the enjoyment, long-term usage, quality, cleanliness and preservation of same. Water quality should be at the head of the list and it would include: • Precluding invasive species and eradicating any species that is introduced and unwanted, • Fining of developers or landowners of and destruction of private permanent development within the 20+ meter setback from the lake or escarpments. Pre-existing conditions would have to be accepted, • Removal of commercial or private fuel tanks within 20+ meters of the Lake or escarpments around the Lake unless meeting stringent environmental standards/specifications, • Managing the number of boats on the lake, • Termination of noise pollution, • Development of another Boat Launch as indicated in the package. There will be a serious need for the Launch and a need for huge parking services (matched to the number of boats allowed on the Lake at the boat launch being serviced) that allow for drive through parking for boat trailers and tow vehicles. Lake Level Management: There is a need to develop a Lake outflow that does not suffer from blockage by vegetation and provides an annual drainage to provide some flushing of the Lake. The current situation has the outflow blocked by vegetation and the result of twice having the drainage system rerouted for the development of the Provincial Highway system, At this stage the Lake outflow is basically blocked. There is drainage about 3 years in 10. Now that the Town and 2 Summer Villages and the dumpage from some regional waste haulers is connected by pipe to the Red Deer Sewage Treatment System there is no need to back-up the outflow of the Lake to provide dilution of the pollution from the Town Sewage Treatment system.
The current annual natural lowering of the Lake Level of some 1.5 feet is through outflow straight up. Evaporation.
Historical Municipality Expansion: The agreement between the Town of Sylvan Lake and the Summer Village of Norglenwold was that the Town would expand on the south side of the old Highway 11 as one headed west on said earlier version of Highway 11. Expansion of the Summer Village of Norglenwold to the north of Highway 11 would be reserved for Country Residential development.
Multiple Overlapping I DPs: It is my assumption that the passing of the Sylvan Lake lntermunicipal Development Plan will terminate (I would think that that is the correct term) the Sylvan Lake/Red Deer County lntermunicipal Development Plan. The approval of the existing 2011 IDP which wrapped in the Summer Villages of Jarvis Bay and Norglenwold looks like a typical strong-arming write-off chocking-off of the two Summer Villages. People who want to live in a Country Residential setting should be allowed to and these Summer Villages should be allowed to grow.
Lakefront Property Setbacks: The 30m setbacks are appropriate for newly developed lands. However, for lakefront locations that have been subdivided the pre-existing conditions should be continued. In my case where my lot and my neighbors have been setback X meters from the escarpment, if I were to teardown my 90-year-old cottage to build a year-round domicile I should be allowed the same setback as the existing neighbor lots: X meters. Page | 69
Land Use: Densities: Why is Red Deer County pushing high density while Lacombe County is looking at a Country Residential like density? I think that they future developable densities around Sylvan Lake should be more like the Country Residential with a maximum of 2 units per acre.
Page | 70