The County Plan – a high-level master plan approved in 2013 to guide development and services within Rocky View County (RVC) for the subsequent 10 years – will soon see updates, following a council decision at a regular meeting Jan. 22. At council’s direction, administration will undertake specific changes to the County Plan followed by a comprehensive review of the planning document – a process briefly outlined in a presentation by Supervisor of Planning and Policy Amy Zaluski, which was nearly forgone. “I’m wondering if we need to go through this report, or if council is desirous of moving ahead and coming up with a motion to direct administration to redo our municipal development plan?” asked Reeve Greg Boehlke. The move was favoured by Deputy Reeve Al Schule, in an effort “to save time,” but after requests from Couns. Samanntha Wright and Crystal Kissel noting some audience members had likely attended the meeting specifically to hear the report, Zaluski was directed to proceed. Through motions arising by Schule – that administration be directed to initiate the process of amending the County Plan – and by Coun. Mark Kamachi – that the former Policy and Priorities Committee recommend to council, as part of the County Plan review, the Highway 8 corridor continue to be considered as a growth corridor – Zaluski said administration had been tasked with updating the County Plan. However, based on those two motions, Zaluski said it was unclear what types of amendments council wanted to see. A County Manager’s workshop was held Sept. 26, 2018, where several themes were identified – potential new growth areas, new forms of development, revised new and distinct agricultural use policies and removal of hamlet targets. “The purpose of this report is to seek clear direction from council as to what you would like to do with the County Plan – amendments or a redo,” Zaluski said, clarifying council was not immediately changing the County Plan but rather providing guidance on what types of amendments should be considered in the future. Administration could either conduct a targeted or comprehensive review of the County Plan, she said. A targeted review would focus on specific items while leaving the bulk of the document unchanged, according to Zaluski, and would be most appropriate to revise new and distinct agricultural use policies, provide minor textual amendments to growth policies and remove hamlet targets – “without impacting the overall current strategy of the County Plan,” she said. A comprehensive review, Zaluski said, would basically rewrite the entire planning document, and would accommodate adding new growth areas, new forms of development and new or revised population targets. “Any amendments to the County Plan would have to go through the [Calgary Metropolitan Region] Board (CMRB) for approval, and would have to align with the Interim Growth Plan and the final Growth Plan,” Zaluski said, adding new growth areas – whether in a targeted or comprehensive review – would require intermunicipal collaboration through CMRB. Alternatively, Zaluski said, council could carry out a targeted review to make smaller amendments, followed by a comprehensive review of the County Plan. Administration prepared two Terms of References (TOR), she said, depending on council’s desire, to guide the amendment process. Zaluski noted the project would have implications on RVC’s 2019 work plan and budget, and could require other projects be rescheduled. As the scope of the work was unknown prior to the meeting, she said administration would need to return to council at a future date with timelines and budget implications. Council raised questions regarding public engagement and the role of intermunicipal collaboration in the process, with both Boehlke and Coun. Mark Kamachi commenting the discussion was “clear as mud.” Kamachi was particularly interested in how to prioritize adding the Highway 8 corridor as a new growth area. “I want something that’s going to be more immediate,” he said. Schule – who stated the current County Plan is “too prescriptive and limiting to [RVC’s] potential” – proposed multiple amendments to both TORs. Schule’s motions to review the County Plan’s wording on residential capacity in growth areas and a map regarding business designation in growth areas in the targeted review TOR were carried unanimously, but Wright opposed an amendment to review the definition of “moderate residential growth.” Wright, along with Boehlke, Kissel and Coun. Kevin Hanson, also opposed a review of a policy regarding business development adjacent to existing business areas, but it was carried 5-4. Schule then proposed amendments to the comprehensive review TOR, which garnered opposition. Wright and Coun. Kevin Hanson voted against considering the Glenmore Trail East area, the Highway 8 area and the Highway 1 West area as growth corridors. Council then voted unanimously to adopt both TORs, with a targeted review slated for completion before administration undertakes a comprehensive review. “This gives us an opportunity, in the short term, to have our municipality move forward on growth, and then come back with what we can realign with [CMRB],” said Coun. Jerry Gautreau.
