Call to Order

Purpose:Reclassi?cation ofPt. NE 17—43—25—4Quinlan, B & BAg to Ind.

PONOKA COUNTY

PUBLIC HEARING

September 12. 2006

A Public Hearing of Ponoka County was held in the County CouncilChambers of the County Administration Building on Tuesday, September 12,2006, with the following people in attendance:

Councillor G. HinkleyCouncillor D. HoarCouncillor P. JensenCouncillor K. BeebeReeve G. SvenningsenMr. C. Cutforth, ChiefAdministrative OfficerMr. T. Webber, Assistant Chief Administrative OfficerMrs. D. Raugust, Recording Secretary

Reeve Svenningsen called the hearing to order at 10:02 a.m.

The Hearing was called to consider concerns/objections to the proposalof Bill& Betty Quinlanto rezone Pt. NE 17-43-25—W4.

Also in attendance were the applicants and four interested ratepayers.

Mr. Cutforth reviewed the application to rezone 10 acres of the NE 17-43-25-W4 from Agricultural District to Industrial district to accommodateexpansion of QuinlanAg-Trac Ltd. shop facilities.

Mr. Cutforth read letters of objection to the proposal from Darren Fleckand Calvin & Lori Sierpinski. Generally the letters opposed the application asthis type of expansion would negatively affect their enjoyment of theirproperty as well as the adjacent County road. They also opposed majorindustrial development in a predominantly residential area and the use of thearea by a major oil?eld hauling company.

Correspondence from Bob Riddett, Manager of the West CentralPlanning Agency, advised that the Municipal Development Plan encourages thedevelopment of small industry serving agriculture, or which is a sideline to afarm operation and he offered no objection to the proposed rezoning.

Mr. Bruno Ruck reiterated the concerns of Darren Fleck and noted thathis greatest opposition when he wished to subdivide had come from theQuinlans.He expressed concern that this proposal would devalue his propertyand it had outgrown its current location.

Mr. Quinlannoted that the damage to the road was not substantial,and he had not sold the property to Western Wheelers. He intended to repairagricultural equipment and continue to inspect larger trucks. He intended tobuild a 60 foot approach in order to accommodate large truck traffic. Heconcurred that the road ban should be enforced as well as noise violations.

Mr. Webber presented the Baker Road study commissioned by theCounty in 2001 on request of the Quinlans.He advised that in conjunction withthe application to rezone, the Quinlanshad applied to erect a 100 x 35’coverall building and a 50 x 100’ addition to the shop.

Those in attendance were thanked for their comments and they left thehearing.

Purpose:Reclassi?cationofPt. NW31-43-2-5Legg, H &JAg to CR

Purpose:Reclassi?cation ofPt. NE 17-43—26—4Hiscock,I & KAg to CRH

September 12, 2006 Public Hearing Page 2

The Hearing was called to consider concerns/objections to the proposalof Harold & Jacinda Legg to rezone Pt. NW 31—43—2-W5within the Hamlet ofBluffton.

Also in attendance was Mr. Legg.

Mr. Cutforth reviewed the application to rezone 6.35 acres of the NW31-43-2—W5 from Agricultural District to Country Residential district toaccommodate creation of three two-acre parcels on the property. There wereno written submissions or comments.

Mr. Legg had approached EnviroWest Engineering to determine if anycontamination was evident from the previous rail yards and had been advisedthat this type of testing would prove futile considering the number of yearssince the rail yard had been removed.

Mr. Cutforth advised that the County would require a utility right—of—way from Mr. Legg for the sewer outfall line if the proposal was accepted.

Mr. Legg con?rmed that he would be selling the majority of thevehicles and his shop due to an accident injury.

Mr. Legg was thanked for his comments and he left the hearing.

The Hearing was called to consider concerns/objections to the proposalof Ian & Kathy Hiscock to rezone the NE l7—43—26—W4.

Also in attendance were Kathy Hiscockand four interested ratepayers.

Mr. Cutforth reviewed the application to rezone 156 acres of the NE 17-43-26-W4 from Agricultural District to Country Residential (Hobby Farm)district to accommodate future subdivision of the property.

Letters of opposition were recognized from Dave Kane, Steve & GennyRose, Doug &Jean Rose and Stan & EstelleElofsen.

Generally, the objections stated were as follows:

1. This is good arable land, Class 1 in some areas, that should remain asfarmlandSize of acreages proposed are too small to farm, but too large to manageConcern that this would create a recreational area, rather than a farmingareaApproval may set a precedent for the surrounding areaIt is immediately adjacent to the Cantriex cattle feedlotAdditional lots means additional people, water wells, septic systems, pets,traf?c, dust and refuse, which can all negatively affect the environment

7. Separation into three lots would put greater pressure on existing fencesand boundaries

8. The Battle River valley needs to be protected

5-"".~"':‘> S-°!\’

Comments from Bob Riddett, Manager of the WCPA, advised that partsof the property were class 1 soil and any new residential development couldnegatively impact the adjacent livestock feeding operation.

A letter of objection from Tony Saretsky, President of CanTriexFeedyards was presented at this time. He expressed concern that any newdevelopment adjacent to his feedlot would surely negatively impact hisoperation.

Mr. Doug Howard reiterated the concerns that this is the best land inthe area and it shoul le protected. It would de?nitely impact his farmingoperation and the C tpiexfeedyard.

299/06Adjournment

September 12, 2006 Public Hearino_ Paqe 3

Mrs. Hiscockaddressed the concerns raised by the adjacent landownersby advising that she had spoken with Ken & Tony from Cantriex and they hadnot expressed concerns at that time. She noted that the subdivision wasintended for estate settlement purposes. The soil classi?cations seemed to beconflicting. There seemed to be quite a few residents in the area now, andmost were more than one per quarter. The school bus will be coming downthat road regardless of how many more residences there were. Dust was afact of life as were septic ?elds and drilling water wells, and dog concerns. Shehad attended a river valley course and knew how farmers could protect theenvironment. She reassured those in attendance that they would not be ableto further split the property as there would be no access to the newly createdportions.

Ken Ilchuk, Manager of the Cantriex Feedlot, clari?ed that he hadexpressed a neutral opinion when asked by Mrs. Hiscock, as he was not theowner of the feedlot.

Moved by Councillor Hinkley, at 10:43 a.m., that the hearing beadjourned.

.....Carried unanimously