THE ALBERTA GAZETTE. AUGUST ,

Similar documents
... inafter called. '?he said territory")

LOCAL AUTHORITIES BOARD SEPARATION ORDER TOWN QF PINCHER CREEK

Red Deer, Alberta acres ~ 468 units

MINUTES OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 5, 2015 Red Deer County Council Chambers, Red Deer County Centre

City of Grande Prairie Development Services Department

c Pursuant to an application by the City of Edmonton dated September

Development Benefit Considerations for the Off-Site Levy Bylaw

APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT General Information

Minutes of a Regular Meeting of County Council RED DEER COUNTY. Tuesday, January 20, 2009

contained within the limits of the Town of Leduc, Alberta, and which

19.12 CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

The Auction Company Ltd. Magnuson Realty Ltd. Phone: Phone: Cell: Coldwell Banker Lifestyle Realty

COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA August 4, 2009 (to follow MPC Meeting)

CHAPTER XIX ANNEXATION ARTICLE 1. ANNEXATION

BYLAW C

BYLAW 5781 ****************

Land Use Planning Analysis. Phase 2 Drayton Valley Annexation Proposal

ARTICLE B ZONING DISTRICTS

CALGARY ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD DECISION WITH REASONS

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT

Central Alberta Regional Assessment Review Board

MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF ROCKY VIEW NO. 44 ELBOW VALLEY WEST DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT BYLAW C

Draft Model Access Management Overlay Ordinance

9. REZONING NO Vicinity of the northwest corner of 143 rd Street and Metcalf Avenue

2014 Plan of Conservation and Development. Development Plan & Policies

IN THE MATTER OF THE Municipal Government Act being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 (Act).

City of Grande Prairie Development Services Department

LAND USE AMENDMENT SPRINGBANK HILL (WARD 6) ELMONT DRIVE SW AND 69 STREET SW BYLAW 114D2017

CITY OF LOGAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. A Resolution approving the Auto Mall Community Development Project Area Plan

L. LAND USE. Page L-1

SUBJECT: Application for Planned Unit Development and Rezoning 1725 Winnetka Road

Prt. NE W5. Prepared for: Municipal District of Foothills #31. Prepared by:

CALGARY ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD DECISION WITH REASONS

CITY of EDMONTON / LEDUC COUNTY ANNEXATION. Framework for Agreement

Calgary Assessment Review Board

Quarter Section Township Range Meridian 4. Mailing Address Street and number City/town Province Postal code

of the territory described on schedule "B" attached to this Order, the lands described therein immediately adjoining the Town of St.

PROVO CITY MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION GUIDE

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING PROPOSALS

POLICY AMENDMENT AND LAND USE AMENDMENT RICHMOND (WARD 8) RICHMOND ROAD SW AND 24 STREET SW BYLAWS 10P2018 AND 52D2018

DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY, MARYLAND OFFICE OF ZONING HEARING EXAMINER SPECIAL EXCEPTION 4658 DECISION

Metropolitan Planning Commission. DATE: April 5, 2016

Central Alberta Regional Assessment Review Board

4.2 LAND USE INTRODUCTION

BYRON TOWNSHIP ZONING APPLICATION

IN THE MATTER OF THE Municipal Government Act being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 (Act).

Wapiti Ridge Estates Area Structure Plan SE W5M. December Prepared For:

BEFORE THE LANCASTER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUTLER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT

ITEM 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Larson and seconded by Sogn to approve the Minutes for November 18, The motion was unanimous.

Chapter Four Growth in the Next 20 years

INVESTMENT PROPERTY FOR SALE ACRES MOBILE HOME PARK 6040 ACRES ROAD SYLVANIA TOWNSHIP, OH PRICE: $995,000

DEER CREEK ESTATES AREA STRUCTURE PLAN

Calgary Assessment Review Board

CALGARY ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD DECISION WITH REASONS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Staff Report. Site Plan Review. SP June 19, 2018

The Planning Commission. DATE: July 19, 2016

Hearing Date: April 17, 2014

DATE: August 25, 2006 FILE NO.: E

Urban Planning and Land Use

WENTWORTH PHASE 1. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND EASEMENT Pursuant to Sections 48(1) and 68(1) of the Land Titles Act, Alberta

Chapter CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (Adopted 12/22/2003; Ordinance # )

Fraser Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan

Diamond Falls Subdivision PROPOSED YELLOWSTONE COUNTY BOARD OF PLANNING FINDINGS OF FACT

A favorable recommendation to the City Council is requested.

OFFICE CONSOLIDATION

MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA

09/15 Agenda. Documents: 9.3 PB AGENDA.PDF Documents: STAFF REPORT.PDF Documents: STAFF REPORT.PDF.

APPROVAL OF USE/DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION

Chapter 100 Planned Unit Development in Corvallis Urban Fringe

WYANDOT COUNTY BASIC STANDARDS FOR THE APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE DEED TRANSFERS & LAND CONTRACT AGREEMENTS

CALGARY ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD DECISION WITH REASONS

Table of Contents. Appendix...22

SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DERBY, KANSAS

CALGARY ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD DECISION WITH REASONS

THE ALBERTA GAZETTE, AUGUST 31, Village Act: f lying adjacent thereto.

Whither the Wilderness County?

Reading Plats and the Complexities of Antiquated Subdivisions Presented by: David W. Depew, PhD, AICP, LEED AP Morris-Depew Associates, Inc.

STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL 1100 Patricia Blvd. I Prince George, BC, Canada V2L 3V9 I

TOWN OF BLACKFALDS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR DECISION TERRY TOPOLNITSKY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MGR

ARTICLE 3 DEFINITIONS

Chapter 21 MOBILE HOME PARK REGULATIONS.

Land Dedication (Reserves)

LOclAL AUTWOIRITIES BOARD

STAFF REPORT. Permit Number: Laurier Enterprises, Inc. Kitsap County Board of Commissioners; Kitsap County Planning Commission

CITY OF FARMERSVILLE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA November 17, :30 P.M. 1, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL

BOARD ORDER: MGB 049/17. IN THE MATTER OF THE Municipal Government Act being Chapter M-26 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 (Act).

LONG-RANGE LAND USE PLAN

To achieve growth, property development, redevelopment and an improved tax base in the cities and boroughs in the Lehigh Valley.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING December 13, 2018 Kootenai County-Coeur d Alene

Town of Onalaska. A scale map depicting the portion of Pineview Drive to be officially laid out as a Town highway is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

STAFF REPORT. Permit Number: Laurier Enterprises, Inc. Kitsap County Board of Commissioners; Kitsap County Planning Commission

Calgary Assessment Review Board

AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER :00 P.M.

February 2, 2012 BOARD MATTER C - 1 WYOMING LAND AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, PROPOSAL TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY IN ALBANY COUNTY, WYOMING

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION INFORMATION PACKAGE

STAFF REPORT THE LEGACY PLAT AMENDMENT

Crockery Township Regular Planning Commission Meeting. August 21, 2012 (Approved)

RESOLUTION NO

1. Roll Call. 2. Minutes a. September 26, 2016 Regular Meeting. 3. Adoption of the Agenda. 4. Visitors to Be Heard

Transcription:

THE ALBERTA GAZETTE. AUGUST 15.1979 -,.- 3, ' C - - 9. Owner. Engineered Homes Ltd., supported the annexation of those lands, namely the south-west quarter of section 14, in which it held an interest. It submitted that annexation should be based on the recognition of urban growth characteristics and the availability of land to accommodate future growth needs. The projected population of 76.000 people by the year 2001 was suggested conservative. By the inclusion of thesaid territory within the jurisdiction of the City of Red Deer now, it would give the City an opportunity to prepare planning policies and to implement development strategies over a sufficiently large area of land to maintain stability in the housing market. Engineered Homes Ltd.. suggested that the annexation of its lands (SWU - 14) ro the City &Red Deer would: "-facilitate planned growth in a logical direction of growth with sufficient size and in sufficient time to allow properly planned, comprehensive, attractive community. "-utilize the utility and transportation capacity which is already in place or approved for construction in the very nearfuture." It was pointed out that while Engineered Homes Ltd., had previously acquired its lots directly from the City of Red Deer. on which it had built some 1200 homes since 1957, it now found the City was not providing sufficient building lots for the firm to have a viable operation and it desired to provide its own. Evidence was given on the economical serviceability of its lands with utilities and transportation. Owner. Melcor Developments Ltd., having an interest in the north-easl quarter of section 3 and the south-east quarter of section I I. supported the annexation of its lands to the City of Red Deer for the following reasons: "I. Central Alberta. and particularly Red Deer, has experienced and will continue to experience significant economic development and population growth in coming years. This will bring continued high demand for land and housing. 2. Melcor Homes. our house building company, has had difficulty acquiring sufficient lots within the City of Red Deer to maintain a viable buildingprogram. 3. The annexation of privately held land will hel~ stimulate competition in the land market of Red ~e&which~scurrentl~ dominated by the city of ~ e Deer. d Their lot sale policies has made land supply inadequate for many buildingcompanies. 4. The area proposed for annexation and particularly the land held by Melcor represents a logical extension of the City both in terms of servicing and in terms of orderly development of land to meet the increased demand in south east Red Deer." Owners granting written consent to the annexation of their respective lands to the City of Red Deer were as follows: ~athton Holdings Ltd. (NE 14-38-274) Red Deer Alliance Church (SW 14-38-274-5,057 acres) Northwestern Utilities Limited (SWU 14-38-27? - 0.14 acres) Arno1d.P. Jerram (SE 4-3&274-10 acres) Andrew and Thorvald Nielsen (NW 3; S.W. 3,38-274) Calgary Power Ltd. (SW 3, S.E. 4-38-274) Owner. C.F. Bower. INE4-3857-4)o~oosed the nnex his lands to the City of Red Deer. These knds are his ho& quarter on which he has his residence, farm buildinas and corrals to handle his cattle operations. He auestioned the effect existingand future tity by-laws may have on his fab operations.-concern was expressed on the increased probability of trespass on his lands. Would certain services, such as the snow plowing of his driveway, be provided? Would he be able to take advantage of the many farm assistance programs, now conducted through the County of Red Deer No. 23, if brought within the City? A further concern was the effect of property taxation and would he be treated in a similar method as if he remained in the County. He pointed out that liis property, if the City of Red Deer'sgrowth Fdtedecreased, may not be developed for urban purposes for a good number ofyears and he would have to continue his farming operations for years to come. Consideration was requested in the Board Order to protect his interests.

Local Authorities Board ' ' - Other owners opposing the annexation of their respective lands to the City of Red Deer were Central Drive-Ins Ltd.. and Charlesand Luella Eversole. Not consentingwere Thomas and Rita Wells and Parkside Holdings Ltd. The County of Red Deer No. 23. at the meeting of Council on June 28.1978, decided not to object to the City of Red Deer's application to annex the said territory. By letter to the Board, dated January 3. 1979. it made the following requests: "1. That the land owned by Mr. Charles Bower, N.E.4-38-27-W4th, be assessed and taxed as farm land for as long as the property is owned by Mr. Bower. 2. That the service road and intersection lying to the west of the N.W. quarter of Section 33-37-27-W4th be included in the annexation. 3. That theeffectivedateoftheannexation. ifapproved. beset at January 1,1980." At the hearing. the County of Red Deer No. 23, stated a willingness to go along with the application to annex the said territory "... even though good agricultural land... " rather than have the said territory taken by "a number of piece-meal type applications for the next number of years," understanding this would suffice for the City's needs until the year200i. The concept of a "20-year rolling stock inventory" of land for the City was not appreciated as meaning the same as the City's 20-year needs. Alberta Transportation, by letter to the Board, dated October27, 1978, advised: "... the annexation in the south-east quadrant of the existing City of Red Deer involves a number of important roadways. Special consideration should be given to the effect of the development on Highways 2 and 2A. Secondary Roads 91 1 and 595. On-going discussions between the City of Red Deer and the Department should include consideration of right+f-way, access control and noise attenuation along these routes. It is considered most important that the sections of service road adjacent to Highway 2 and2a and the road allowances for Secondary Roads 91 1 and 595 be included within the annexed area. This will avoid problems associated with extensive usage of county roads due to the City's development." The Board. havingconsidered the evidence presented to it at the hearing, has reached the following conclusions: I. That the city of Red Deer. being central to the two major growth centres of Alberta. serving a large agricultural area and rich resource based region, with an established development record. will continue to grow in development and populations, probably at annual rates exceeding normal Alberta community growth patterns. 2. The applicant. City of Red Deer, has satisfied the Board that additional lands will be required within its jurisdiction to meet the future needs of the City. 3. That while the lands allocated to residential uses are in excess of the City of Red - D e e r ' ~ e ~ e e d ~ UdLenLyyeats,lheBoard e x f recognizes that the estimates of needs may be conservative. The estimated density of 20 personsper acres, ThEi compared to other communities throughout the Province of Alberta is high. 4. That the City of Red Deer did not establish a need for additional industrial lands; no inventory of current lands or projected needs being submitted. The argument that dispersal of industrial lands throughout the City was desirable for transportation reasons. is acknowledged. However, the owners' objection to the annexation oftheir lands to the City is also acknowledged. 5. That the City of Red Deer already owns and is planning or has in operation, certain municipal uses on other lands - namely a land-fill site and exhibition grounds, and it is assumed that there is a need for such lands for such purposes. 6. That the City of Red Deer has established capacity within its existing water and sanitary sewer main lines to service the said territory, and has or will have, when planned expansions are completed, sufficient plant capacity to service the development of the said territory. 7. That there are no topographical restraints to the development of the said territory, it falling within a common storm water shed with other areas ofthe City of Red Deer to the east and southof the Red Deer River. Further, the said territory is a logical expansion to the City of Red Deer, having been considered in utility, transportation, and planning studies. a<,.