Residents appear before council with land use objections

Times Photo By Cal Braid. LAND: The proposed development land at 56 Street and 62 Avenue is directly south of the wetland and storm pond. Residents said the drainage ditch adjacent to the land is a hazard that would need to be fenced off. They also had numerous other concerns about a future development at the site.

By Cal Braid
Taber Times
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

The Town opened council chambers for a public hearing on Nov. 12 to hear from local residents about their desire to preserve three pieces of public land in their current state.

 The hearing came after the Town ran mandatory advertisements in the Times notifying locals of its request to change the designations of several public areas. The Municipal Government Act requires municipalities to notify residents, post signs on the land, and open the matter for a public hearing, and this last week’s hearing was unusually well-attended. Those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak for or against the designations.

The first request was to remove a ‘municipal reserve’ designation on the 2.1-acre parcel of land at 56 Street and 62 Avenue. The land is northeast on 56 Street. where the residential area ends and in a wetland. There is limited room for development directly north of the existing homes before the ground drops into a low-lying grassy pond.

 Economic Development manager Amy Allred began by reading a handful of letters administration received from citizens. Similar themes arose in each one, including the following fragments:

-“(It) has been a natural habitat for many birds, muskrats, heron, and geese. If they decide to sell the section of land, there’s a possibility of development in this area that could affect the natural habitat…”

-“It is a green space that has been used by families in the area for years. When green space is taken away, it is gone forever.”

-“We feel developing this land will take away from the greenery and habitat for wildlife. Many neighbours in the community as well as ourselves utilize this green space for sports and recreation, supervised play for children and animals etc. We urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning.”

-“We have seen this land used as grazing land for families of geese and other wildlife, parents and children exploring the wetlands, families walking with children and pets, wildlife photography, cross-country skiing and walking. This seems to be one of the few quiet natural areas left in Taber that many citizens of this town have enjoyed over the years.”

After purchasing their home many years ago, one couple said, “We were advised..that the land was in reserve; it was never to be developed. Not only was it to be held as a green space, it was also to be available should there be a requirement to expand the current storm pond.” They said they made financial decisions for their home based upon the reserve status of the adjacent land.

 Several letters also mentioned concerns about noise, safety, traffic, tax implications, crime, contaminated soil cleanup costs, and new infrastructure that may arise from a new development in the area.

 After Allred’s reading of the letters, at least six residents who live in the neighbourhood came forward to address council. All had objections. Another confronted council about passing the first reading of the reserve removal before consulting with the public.

 The second request from the Town was to remove the municipal reserve designation on Ernest Meyer Memorial Park, a 2.14-acre parcel of land at 53 Street south. Allred took the lead and read the correspondence again.

 One letter, from local resident Scott Gillespie, said in part, ”I’ve lived across from (the park) for 17 years now. I was not aware this was not a park. With the rock and plaque there, the mature trees, lights, pathways and the fact it is irrigated and mowed all summer it sure seems it’s a full sized park. It is used often duringt the summer for dog exercise, kids playing sports, and people at the playground hanging out while their kids play.”

 “I would like to see its status not changed and kept for the use of future generations as a park. We can’t always count on the school being open for all to use. If the town expands east and south there will be many more people looking for a recreation spot,” Gillespie said.

 Other letters voiced similar sentiments about the park’s value for kids, pets, recreation, and family picnics. Car and foot traffic and additional noise were other concerns. Several citizens suggested holding a public hearing at a different time, when hard working taxpayers and parents with school children could attend. Ecological preservation was noted as well.

 The third item request was to receive feedback on an application for development in a Direct Control District (DC-2). As per Land Use Bylaw 13-2020, a notice for the development application was sent out to all properties within 100 metres of the site. The site address is 5508 46 Ave. and is set to be a restaurant built in an approved shopping centre. No one at the public hearing spoke up and no correspondence was read.

 The hearing ended and council welcomed those in the gallery to stay for ensuing discussion later in the meeting if they were so inclined.