PUBLIC HEARING: MARCH 23, 2019 LSAC LAND USE BYLAW REVIEW ~ LAC STE. ANNE AND COMMUNITIES RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION (LSARA)... Because We Care!

PUBLIC HEARING LSAC LAND USE BYLAW REVIEW

We are changing gears a wee bit as this next topic is time sensitive and still allows you, the ratepayer to ask questions of your Council if there are items of concern or question for the changes to the new Land Use Bylaw. You have up until beginning of April to address any issues.

PUBLIC HEARING: MARCH 23, 2019 LSAC LAND USE BYLAW REVIEW

The meeting started out with All Councillors in attendance as well as some staff, specifically Matthew Ferris and his Development Department Staff. This is the final public consultation in a series of many over the last year and a half. There is an expectation that the package will be reviewed again at the next council meeting on April 3rd and barring any major changes, will be passed. If there are any more changes up for discussion, then I believe they will look at passing them at the next council meeting proceeding this April 3rd one.

Matthew Ferris, Development Manager said the changes “Reflect what Administration feels is fair”, after hosting many open houses and consultation. The LUB was passed 5 years ago but now have changes, specifically dealing with RV’s as well as incorporating changes from the new MGA.

There are new definitions and interpretations. Definitions from Clauses in section 15 and interpretations from 1.3.1 and 1.10.7 (discretionary on case by case basis). The biggest change comes to the Notification of adjacent land owners. They used to send out notices for Development permits to all adjacent landowners but the new LUB stipulates that notices may not be sent out for ALL developments.

They also can now email out Decisions which is new,. The other major change outside the RV issue, is the lifting of restrictions on allowing mobile homes older than 20 years (they still have to meet safety code standards). There will likely still be issues with Financing as well as obtaining insurance with these older mobiles so just saying they will be allowed does not get you into one. Matthew Ferris stated we are to be known as “the AFFORDABLE place to live”. I remember him saying at an open house that we are to be known as the “Recreational County” when speaking about allowing Recreational Vehicles on vacant lands.

There are many changes to Zoning and allowable uses, specifically in respect of the RV’s. Just to give a bit of history, the current LUB never had provisions allowing RV’s of any kind to be used on vacant lots. I hear a lot of people saying these should be “GRANDFATHERED”. You can only grandfather something that was at one time legal to begin with. You cannot grandfather something that was never legal according to the Bylaws prior to this rewrite. So people purchased vacant lots and assumed that if there was an RV somewhere in the subdivision or community on a vacant lot that they were allowed to do this. They, the people, never checked with the county if the bylaws permitted this.

Exceeding the Maximum may be exceeded on parcels allowing RVs with the following restrictions.

Since the County had ZERO enforcement, that trend continued until it was so out of control that enforcement was not possible. So the County Administration decided that the easy thing to do was to change the Rules to Accommodate all the illegal activity. Easy, right? Well now there are new Bylaws for these RV’s that are ready to be passed allowing them in MOST areas, excepting those that are classified as “Estates”, However, there are new rules for these RV users such as the necessity for proper lawful Holding Tanks to be installed and new setbacks. Question is, who is going to enforce this? If it was impossible to enforce the first breach of law, what or who does the enforcement of this new law?

A bit of further history that is important to note: all surrounding Summer Villages and smaller towns adjoining this county as well as County of Parkland have a ZERO TOLERANCE for allowing RV’s on any vacant lots!!! AND THEY ENFORCE IT. So County of Parkland has requested through consultation in relation to the IDP (Inter municipal development plan) that no areas bordering their county be allowed RV’s . The Reason is same as what created this issue. If a purchaser sees RV’s being used in the general vicinity then they will “assume” they too can enjoy the same recreational activities and this will have potential to cause County of Parkland undue hardship in enforcement. Whether the Lac Ste Anne County considers this argument or not is another question.

It was stipulated that the Summer Village of Alberta Beach, S.V. of Sunset Point, S.V. of Val Quentin and S.V. of South View were consulted and did not reply with any concerns. It is a bit bewildering to me as they must have the same concerns as the County of Parkland and perhaps did not consider the implications of not responding. They have success currently in their Zero Tolerance for RV usage on vacant land but again, having bordering lands allowing this may make their enforcement of their own bylaws more difficult.

Now let us talk about ZONING and the implementation of new designations such as RUSTIC RESIDENTIAL and COUNTY ESTATES. My biggest question is what is the Criteria for determining what type of zoning each area gets? What Classifies an “Estate” over what is considered “Rustic”? Neither designation is recognized by Charter Banks or the financial institution Insurers. That doesn’t necessarily mean that financing will not be attainable but it definitely means that it will be harder to obtain as properties will likely be subject to the “Stress Test”, having to obtain physical appraisals vs those on the Electronic Systems, costing the average buyers more money, stress and time in the process of purchasing. And rest assured the Appraisers will be noting all factors that influence value including but not limited to surrounding properties and uses. We may be classified by Charter Banks and Insurers as a B or C location for lending all because of the new zoning designations and permitted uses, making it harder and more cumbersome to obtain financing.

All this could be simplified if they just looked at using a Zoning designation currently identified on the Financial World current programs and user databases with checkboxes. They could look at different CR (County Residential) and put a number behind it, it likely eliminates some stress as CR is a recognized box check on the Lenders screens for approved residential designations. I guarantee RR is not on their screens thus causing the RED Flag that precipitates further steps of purchase. Seems so simple.

So again, we ask Council and Administration to reconsider the new zoning designations. We ask how they intend to “Enforce” their new rules? And we ask for what criteria is used in determining the designation for each area for zoning, Why would Sturgeon Heights be considered an “Estate” area but Belle Vista and Lessard Landing are not? One is CRX and one is RR? Rolling Woods is not a “Lake” property but currently in the new RR zoning area? Why. Just clarification as to the determination of these new designations would be greatly appreciated.