Westlock County will hold a public hearing Sept. 10 regarding future development within floodway and flood fringe areas near the Pembina River.
About 25 ratepayers and concerned citizens packed into council chambers for council’s Aug. 13 meeting, hoping to hear the latest developments in the ongoing dilemma that has residents worried they may never be able to develop their properties near the river due to a lack of regulations from the province and stipulations in the county’s municipal development plan.
CAO Leo Ludwig presented council with a draft bylaw, that after a lengthy discussion was accepted for information. The document will be changed further depending on the outcome of the public hearing, which is scheduled for Sept. 10 at the Legion Hall at 10:30 and 11 a.m.
“This was drafted as a compromise from where the province wants us to be in terms of full-on prohibition. The message from the province is that if it’s in a floodway, then there’s an absolute prohibition of any kind of structure. If it’s in the flood fringe, there could be a structure built as long as there is a number of measures that are taken that allows for mitigation,” Ludwig told council.
“This is a draft for review and comment. We’re not proposing that this is written in stone. We’re proposing that this be looked at as a potential compromise from where the province wants us to be and what may allow for operations to continue.”
What is still unknown is the draft legislation the province is working on that may come at any time, which may change the entire scenario again, said Ludwig.
It all depends on what is written in that regulation.
Council also heard from ratepayer and former councillor Jim Wiese, who said he was speaking for all the residents affected by the regulations, or lack thereof.
Reeve Lou Hall told the delegation beforehand of the public hearing that had been scheduled to go over some of the changes to the documents in question regarding the flood overlay.
“We believe it is bad policy and we want that policy changed, but we don’t want a compromise, we want a solution,” said Wiese.
“We want to work with council and seek a consensus that will work for the people that are affected.”
Wiese told council affected ratepayers are pleased with the fact council is considering changes and taking the issue to a public hearing.
“Those things are positive for us, because we are trying to work to find a solution,” said Wiese, adding that a lot of the confusion surrounding the issue comes from the wording of the bylaw and ambiguity of the bylaw.
“These policies are really discrimination against a group of individuals within the municipality ... How are we supposed to run a business if we have different rules than our neighbours? They’re our competitors. They’re also our neighbours, but they’re our competitors as well,” said Wiese.
“If we can’t expand our farms and live on our homesteads, some of them have been around for 100 years, how does that benefit the municipality as a whole?”
Wiese said there is about $200 million in infrastructure in the affected area along with $500 million in farmland.
“We need a mechanism in place that more than one generation can live on these farms and the transition can happen. That’s inherent to the future of our operations,” said Wiese.
After the delegation spoke, council discussed Wiese’s comments for another 45 minutes.
“I think this has been a good meeting in accomplishing some of the wishes of the ratepayers,” said reeve Hall.
“I think it’s a good first draft and I approve of the recommendations to take it to a public hearing. Receiving as information and taking it to a public hearing is a good plan,” said reeve Hall.
