Westlock County Council approved area structure plans for five parcels despite concerns raised around the usage of the land at the public hearing.
The proposed area structure plan is located along the northern shore of Helliwell Lake, approximately 0.8 km east of Highway 2 and Township Road 610A intersection. The detailed plan proposes creating five parcels for residential development that will be completed in a single phase.
Council approved the plan at the June 10, regular council meeting
The structure plan provides a detailed analysis of the site, including its accessibility to potable water, its commitment to maintaining the environmental reserve and how the development will happen in one stage. They provided the reports from a wetland assessment prepared by CPP Environmental in September 2020 to determine there was no impact on the suitability of the site.
In their preliminary groundwater feasibility assessment, SD Consulting Group determined in their report in January 2024 that the Oldman Aquifer can support the four new country parcels without interfering with any other users. However, the water was determined to have high alkalinity and dissolved solids levels. A test well was recommended for a full analysis to determine treatment requirements, as the water quality varies depending on the depth of the well and water source.
During the public hearing on May 21, 2025, three residents provided their thoughts on why they are opposed to the area structure plan. Allan Dzivinski, a local agriculture producer whose property is adjacent to the proposed land, described his experience with the Nestow recreation residents who reside on the south side of Helliwell Lake and who often drive quads near his property
“I have on numerous occasions caught people moving wires on the fence or opening gates to gain access, which could result in my livestock being left to roam and possibly approach Highway two," Nestow said.
The disrespectful nature temporary guests tend to have towards the environment was also brought up by Dzivinski, citing the increase of garbage on the roadside and field entrances and roads that have been ripped up by quads and side-by-side’s.
“Seasonal and/or recreational land users do not respect and maintain their surroundings and environment the way permanent occupants do," said Dzivinski.
Dzivinski was at the public hearing in person to read his letter and assure that councillors knew he, and many other residents in the area, wanted assurances that the development would not be turned into a multi-unit recreational establishment.
Another resident, Dalton Roska, lives just east of the Helliwell area and has noticed the same pattern from seasonal or temporary residents. The trespassing and cutting of fences along their property cause additional stress and worry about damage to their land.
The lake, traffic and noise pollution and the possible limitations put on crop spraying due to drift are pressure points for Jeanna Roska, the third resident who wrote in opposition to the area structure plan.
Both Dzivinki and Dalton Roska cited section 5.6 of their plan, which states, "as this is anticipated to be a recreational development with no continuous occupancy, there was no analysis of local school population generation for County schools.”
This statement raised concerns regarding the purpose of these dwellings.
The councillors shared the concerns raised by the residents. Coun. Fox-Robinson voiced his concerns about the tax base and about whether stipulations need to be added to make sure everyone is happy with the outcome. Julie Mclean, the general manager of Planning and Community Services, suggested a restrictive covenant would be receptive by the landowner to cover some of the requirements of a permanent dwelling or a dwelling of a certain size.
One such requirement that was suggested included a provision in the sale agreement that stated the new owners would have to sell the lot back to the original owners if a dwelling had not been developed within a certain time frame.
Councillors postponed the reading to June 10, 2025, where administration added the condition that a single or detached dwelling must be built on the property before a recreational vehicle can be there.
Both the second and third motions were carried with these new provisions added. Administration will be working alongside the landowners to develop the subdivision.
