WESTLOCK – Town of Westlock councillors have taken the first step towards closing the unused 113th Avenue road allowance on the north side of Highway 18, a move they say is motivated by an offer to purchase the 1.12 acre sliver of land for an undisclosed commercial development.
At their Nov. 22 regular meeting, councillors first held a 26-minute public hearing to discuss 113th Avenue Road Closure, Bylaw 2021-22, then followed up by giving first reading to the edict. The road closure documents will now be forwarded to Alberta Transportation for approval before coming back to council for possible second and third readings.
“And at those times we can ask for further clarification, we can ask administration to check with Alberta Transportation on certain issues and seek clarification. But it will still need to come before council for ratification,” said mayor Ralph Leriger before first reading passed unanimously.
“This doesn’t commit our council to a decision down the road. We don’t know what we don’t know and there’s lot of information for us to collect to determine what the correct response is. Passing first reading makes the most sense because it enables us to go down the path of discovery,” added Coun. Murtaza Jamaly. “This could fail at second reading and end the process. It could fail at third and end the process. It could end by Alberta Transportation saying ‘no.’”
“Or it could end in success and a land sale and an additional business in town,” Leriger added.
In its briefing to council, administration said it has received a purchase offer for the 113th Avenue road allowance and to satisfy the conditions of the sale it must be closed — the town won’t say who made the offer or what they want to do with the land. Admin goes on to note that this portion of 113th Avenue was acquired in 1980 and has remained undeveloped, while the town’s long-range plans don’t contemplate any future development.
The briefing goes on to state that Alberta Transportation was contacted and had no objections to the proposal, with the understanding that a fronting service road would be constructed prior to development occurring on any lot east of 113th Avenue. The construction of such a service road “would be … part of a development approval and formalized with a development agreement and security” admin’s briefing states. There is currently a service road from 108th Avenue in front of a portion of the UFA, while the remainder of the undeveloped service road right-of-way runs all the way to 115th Avenue.
There are two access points to Rocky Mountain Equipment, which occupies the lots on either side of the 113th Avenue road allowance — one to the business is via 113th Avenue, while the second is few hundred metres to the west.
“The basic right of way for such a service road appears to exist already, though bulbing at the 115th Avenue end might be needed to accommodate the turning movement of commercial vehicles. Eventually such a fronting service road would connect from 108th Avenue to 115th Avenue,” reads a letter from Alberta Transportation development and planning technologist Robert Lindsay. “The existing north local road access at 113th Avenue should probably close at some point because it is unnecessary and less than 400 metres from 115th Avenue.”
Jamaly asked if the words “should probably close” in regards to the 113th Avenue access point off Highway 18 means they’ll want it closed and lead to the construction of a service road.
“I read that as there’s opportunity to have discussion about the existing accesses. And I have had some success having discussion with Alberta Transportation on accesses and a lot of times it’s about how many parcels you’re servicing,” explained CAO Simone Wiley. “If they’re put together then access isn’t as big of an issue because they look at you having to provide access to each parcel. But if it’s a single parcel then it’s a bit of a different conversation sometimes.
“I think ultimately the accesses are too close together off the highway at 113th and 115th. So, where they’re saying ‘should probably close at some point’ that’s because that’s their standard. I think there’s likely some opportunity to have discussion on it.”
Opposition
The town received a single written submission against closing the road allowance from Rocky Mountain vice-president Curtis Borduzak, while adjacent landowner Nick Jonk attended the meeting in person and quizzed council “on what’s driving this” to which Leriger told him simply that someone wants to buy the lot.
Six other residents who replied to the town via letter had no issue with the closure, while electricity, natural gas and telecom companies also signed off on the proposal.
Borduzak, who missed the public hearing, did eventually connect with council over Zoom with Leriger asking him to call him or administration for further clarification.
Borduzak, who owns the property on either side of the parcel in question, was against the proposal claiming there’ll be “significant devaluation of and access” immediately to the land east of 113th Avenue. He also says it would reduce access to Rocky Mountain, which is located at 11140 – 100th Street, as there has “already been numerous negotiations to maintain highway access with (the) provincial department of highways and one of your largest property tax paying customers in town.”
“I have already seen the impact of the road closure in the form of prospective land buyers/co-developer in reducing interest and reducing potential transaction/sale price based on this proposal by the town as it limits further the type and number of businesses that could be brought into an area that had side-street access, versus only highway frontage,” he wrote, claiming that under the Municipal Government Act a road closure must ensure that access to adjacent lands will not be affected.
“This change would push more development costs onto the landowner without looking at the long-term benefit to the town. In addition, reducing the potential opportunity for new or expanding businesses to find adequate land base in the town with an increased property tax base, benefiting the town. Lastly, a significant decrease in the current land values all at the expense of new and existing business owners.”
