BARRHEAD - County of Barrhead councillors have not closed the door completely on building a road on Thunder Lake.
On June 17, councillors unanimously accepted a recommendation from administration to deny a request from the property owners, who had asked the municipality to expand what is presently only a trail on a road allowance and only accessible by off-highway vehicles to a machine road quality, allowing them easier access to what is essentially a vacation property on the southwestern shore of Thunder Lake.
Administration recommended denying the request to upgrade the road allowance or standard of the undeveloped road, as it does not align with the municipality's policy, thereby leaving the county open to potential liability.
However, council did leave the door open a small crack, instructing administration to investigate possible options that would allow the property's owner to upgrade the road so they could access their land via a vehicle. They also asked administration to obtain a legal opinion on these options.
It is the third time the issue has been presented to councillors for their consideration. The first was in April 2023, when councillors denied a request from the landowners to improve the road allowance.
The second instance was in November 2024, when the owners requested that the council permit them to use a mulcher to widen the trail to nearly a "machine road" condition rather than the municipality upgrading the road.
In April, council denied the request, stating that it did not meet multiple county bylaws, plans and policies. They also cited liability concerns. In November 2024, councillors tabled the decision, asking administration to research the potential risk to the municipality and any possible alternatives.
County manager Debbie Oyarzun said she reviewed the request with the heads of several departments, including municipal planning, public works, and road development.
"All roads in the county, whether they are developed or undeveloped, are vested in the [provincial] Crown and under [Alberta's Municipal Government Act or MGA], gives us the jurisdiction to direct control to manage those roads and with that comes the liability," she said.
Oyarzun noted the original landowners developed the property several years ago prior to the creation of the Land-use Bylaw.
Tax records indicate that in 1934, the landowner constructed a cabin on the property, which remains in place. However, in 1992, it was declared uninhabitable and subsequently removed from the assessment rolls.
In 2003, the land's previous owners placed the property and an adjacent property (which they gifted to the municipality) under the stewardship of the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) with the condition that the land is to remain in its natural state, except for maintenance of the yard site, which includes the derelict cabin, a garden and a yard. The current owners would like to use the land as basically a private campground using recreational vehicles, but the state of the road makes that impossible.
Oyarzun stated that the cost of developing and maintaining an undeveloped road allowance for vehicle traffic is not economically feasible or desirable, as it contradicts the county's municipal development plan (MDP).
"An undeveloped road allowance is not intended to be travelled by passenger vehicles. They are meant to be left in their natural state. That is what all [county's] policies and MDP indicate," she said.
Later in the discussion, Oyarzun also pointed out that constructing a farm access or machinery road to a recreation property would also go against existing municipal policy in that they are only to provide access to farm properties or for temporary industrial purposes.
"The challenge is how we balance that," she said.
Public works manager Travis Wierenga walked the trail, saying that it was slightly wider than a quad and was generally clear.
"On the right-hand side, there is privately-owned pasture which has a fence line. The person who installed it likely cut into the road allowance," he said, adding on the other side is a county-owned quarter.
Wierenga added there is a large hill roughly 300 metres into the trail, which, he said, is likely too steep for conventional vehicles.
He also said there was nowhere along the path wide enough to allow for a full-sized vehicle.
"There is also a low area, which, if the lake is high enough, would likely flood," Wierenga said.
Stoik said he understood and mostly agreed with the municipality's road policies, adding there must be a way under the existing framework to help the landowners access their land via vehicles.
"Realistically, if they have to upgrade the road to machine road standard, they are looking at $30,000 to $40,000," he said.
Infrastructure director Ken Hove suggested the cost would be much more than that.
At an April 2023 council meeting, he stated that they would need to undertake significant work to bring the approximately 1.62-kilometre, or one mile, to a point where it would be passable for a recreational vehicle.
Hove said that achieving the "local road" minimum standard as required under the municipal policy for the construction of new roads, which in that area of the county would be a 22-foot road top with a one-meter grade, would cost between $180,000 to $210,000 with an annual upkeep cost of roughly $3,500. He added that even if they built the road to the lesser machine road standard, the cost would run somewhere between $80,000 to $100,000, with annual maintenance costs of about $1,400.
Under county policy, the vast majority of the construction costs, with the potential exception of up to $5,000, could be shared equally. The municipality would bear the cost of maintaining the road.
Stoik suggested that the municipality could sell three acres of land to the landowners from the municipality's adjacent quarter, which they could use to access their own land.
"Hypothetically, if they were able to buy three acres, bring a CAT in, they could get something passable for under $10,000, and they would own it," he said. "We are not doing anything with the land, and it goes to nothing we ever would need or use."
Infrastructure director Ken Hove agreed but suggested it wouldn't be as cost-effective as the municipality would be required to sell the land at market value.
"The challenge is, it isn't machinery equipment going to a farm. It is vehicle access, and that brings it to a higher level of standard. Council can't knowingly say, 'Go ahead, drive cars and trucks on this road for passenger vehicle access, when the road isn't to that standard," Oyarzun said, adding before council contemplated going that direction, the municipality would need to get a legal opinion.
Hove agreed. "You wouldn't be restricting access to them. Anyone could go out on a Sunday drive."
Deputy Reeve Marvin Schatz agreed that, under Stoik's scenario, if the road allowance remained, the county's liability would be limited, as the road would be on private land, with appropriate signage and possibly even a gate.
Stoik also said that because a road is a machine, it doesn't mean cars and trucks are not travelling on it.
"You find me one machine road, where passenger vehicles are not driving on it, bringing in anything else to their field like food or fuel. Any machine road is passenger vehicle accessible," he said. "If that is what is in our current policies, we need to review it because it isn't reasonable."
Barry Kerton, TownandCountryToday.com
