Bylaw 1224-13: County of Minburn/Town of Vegreville IDP
County of Minburn No. 27, Alberta
· adopted 2013-01-01
This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot a07eb88ca31a · verified 2026-06-08 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
1
County of Minburn No. 27 - Town of Vegreville
Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP)
June 14, 2013
Part 1 - Introduction
p. 2
Part 2 - Land Use Inventory and Analysis
p. 9
Part 3 - Land Use Policies and Concept
p.23
Part 4 - Implementation
p. 31
Appendix One, Public Consultation
p. 38
Appendix Two, Implementation Tasks
p. 40
Appendix Three, Vermilion River and Floodplain
p. 48
List of Maps
Map 1
Location
Map 2
Regional Context
Map 3
Joint Planning Area
Map 4a
Opportunities and Constraints - Vermilion River and Floodplain
Map 4b
Opportunities and Constraints - Municipal Assets, Transportation and
Other Infrastructure
Map 4c
Opportunities and Constraints - Land Use Districts (i.e. "Zoning")
Map 5
Agricultural Land
Map 6
Future Land Use
Map 7
Land Use Concept
Appendix 3
MDP Map 4 - Flood Topography
2
County of Minburn No. 27 - Town of Vegreville
Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP)
Part 1 - INTRODUCTION
This Part introduces the Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) and the background to
the agreement between the County of Minburn and the Town of Vegreville to prepare an
IDP.
An IDP is a municipal, statutory planning document defined by the Municipal Government
Act (MGA). The MGA is the legislative authority for the document.
This Part also explains the purpose of the IDP, identifies the members of the IDP Steering
Committee, and provides an overview of the structure of the document, including notes
to assist in reading and understanding the document.
1.1 Background
The County and the Town are located in east-central Alberta (see Map 1, Location). In
2005 a development group proposed to develop a bio-fuel processing facility on a parcel
of land in the County that was adjacent to the Town boundary. The development needed
municipal services that the County could not provide. A mediated annexation agreement
was concluded in 2007 that allowed the Town to annex the land in order to provide
services when the development proceeded. Annexation of the land occurred in 2010.
The 2007 agreement also required the County and the Town to prepare an Intermunicipal
Development Plan (IDP). Since 2007, the County and the Town have adopted new
Municipal Development Plans (MDP) that include policies to support an IDP. In 2011, the
two Councils made the commitment to proceed with an IDP and the first meeting of the
County / Town IDP Steering Committee (the Steering Committee) was held on November
16, 2011.
1.2 Legislative Framework
1.2.1 Key MGA Provisions for IDPs
The MGA requires the two or more municipalities participating in an IDP to include "those
areas of land lying within the boundaries of the municipalities as they consider
necessary". The MGA also provides direction to the municipalities on the content of an
IDP.
!
"
#
$
!
#
%
&
&
#
'
(
)
*
'
+
,
-
.
/
0
-
.
1
2
-
.
3
4
-
.
/
-
.
/
-
.
3
4
-
.
4
5
-
.
3
5
-
.
6
5
7
8
9
: ;
<
=
>
?
@
A
B C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
O
P
Q
I
R
I
S
T
O
H
I
U
P
V
PI
W
P
X
Y
Z
[
[
H
I
U
P
\
Z
]
P
^
O
H
I
U
P
V
Z
X
J
Y
H
I
U
P
Q
Y
Z
L
P
_
Z
`
Y
H
I
U
P
a
^
[
b
H
I
U
P
c
d
e
f
g
h
g
g
g
i
j
k
l
j
m
n
o
o
j
p
q
r
s
t
q
u
s
v
w
l
x
y
q
u
s
z
x
q
{
|
n
s
}
u
l
s
t
q
u
s
v
w
l
x
~
~
¡
¢
£
¤
¢
¥
£
£¢
¦
§
¨
¡
£
©
ª
ª
©
ª
«
ª
¬
®
¯
°
±
²
³
´
µ
¶
´
3
4
An IDP may provide for:
(i)
the future land use within the area,
(ii)
the manner of and the proposals for future development in the area and,
(iii)
any other matter relating to the physical, social or economic
development of the area that the councils consider necessary.
An IDP must include:
(i)
a procedure to be used to resolve or attempt to resolve any conflict between the
municipalities that have adopted the plan,
(ii)
a procedure to be used, by one or more municipalities, to amend or repeal the
plan, and
(iii)
provisions relation to the administration of the plan.
The distinction between these two sections is important. Since the municipalities may
address land use, future development, and any other matter, the participating
municipalities have the flexibility to prepare an IDP that addresses local conditions and
circumstances. However, the municipalities must include provisions to administer the IDP,
plan amendment and repeal procedures, and a conflict resolution procedure.
1.2.2 Other MGA provisions
The County and the Town must notify the public and school authorities about the
preparation of the IDP, and must provide opportunities for them to "make suggestions
and representations" while the plan is being prepared.
The MGA requires that all statutory plans adopted by a municipality must be consistent
with each other. The land use policies in the new County and Town MDPs have served as
a foundation for the IDP policies, thereby ensuring consistency.
The IDP must be (and is) consistent with the Government of Alberta (the Government)
land use policies under section 622(3) of the MGA.
The MGA requires the IDP to be consistent with a Regional Plan adopted pursuant to the
Alberta Land Stewardship Act. The Government has publicly stated that the North
Saskatchewan Regional Plan (NSRP) will be prepared for all lands within the watershed of
the North Saskatchewan River (including the County and the Town) in the future.
1.3 Council Jurisdiction
The IDP will be adopted as a statutory plan of the Councils. The Councils will jointly
5
amend, implement and/or monitor the Plan as required. Decisions to proceed with any of
the implementation tasks in the Plan will be made by the Councils on a recommendation
from the IDP Committee, and subject to the Council's priorities, business plans, and
availability of financial and administrative resources.
1.4 Purpose
The purpose of the IDP is stated in the Goals that were adopted by the Steering
Committee in the January 30, 2012 Terms of Reference.
i.
Determine a joint planning area and develop a coordinated land use, servicing and
development strategy for this area that includes lands within the County and parts
or all of undeveloped Urban Reserve lands in the Town. Within this strategy,
existing municipal boundaries and policies for the Urban Reserve lands in the
forthcoming Town MDP are recognized, and provide context for an approach.
ii.
Agree on sound and transparent planning policies to maximize certainty for the
benefit of developers and investors, and for the elected officials and
administrations of both municipalities.
iii.
Adopt a meaningful and useful statutory plan document that has sufficient
flexibility to capture development opportunities for the County and Town that
may not be immediately evident.
iv.
Identify and protect areas that may or will be required for the future growth of
the Town of Vegreville, and establish a logical staging program for the eventual
inclusion of such areas within the Town. In this context, the plan can provide a
generalized "road map" for possible future annexation.
v.
Ensure that lands in the area are ready for development in advance by
determining servicing requirements, development standards, appropriate zoning
and the real (i.e. actual and verifiable) costs of new development.
vi.
Establish an inter-municipal body that will administer the IDP and recommend to
both Councils best practices to maintain the plan so that it will generate benefits
for the County and the Town over the course of a defined plan horizon.
vii.
Adopt a dispute resolution process to address disagreements fairly and
expeditiously, and to develop ways and means to respond to the unforeseen.
viii.
Establish implementation measures and mechanisms to guide and support future
decision-making.
6
ix.
Create a permanent foundation for a collaborative approach to land use growth
and economic development in the area for the mutual benefit of both
municipalities.
1.5 Steering Committee
County of Minburn
Elected Officials
Eric Anderson, Reeve
Carl Ogrodnick, Councillor
David Rattray, Councillor
Administration
Dave Marynowich, County Manager
Davin Gegolick, Planning and Development Officer
Trudy Shukalak, Administration
Town of Vegreville
Elected Officials
Richard Coleman, Mayor
Adam Kozakiewicz, Councillor (to December 2012)
Natalia Toroshenko (from January 2013)
Greg Kurulok, Councillor
Administration
Jody Quickstad, Town Manager
Dale Lefebvre, Director of Infrastructure, Planning & Development
Kerina Andrews, Development Authority Officer
Heather Steinwand, Development Clerk
Steering Committee decisions were made by consensus. If a vote was required, only
elected officials could vote.
Greg Hofmann of G.T Hofmann & Associates provided land use planning consulting
services to the County. Ed Grifone of CTQ Consultants provided land use planning
consulting services to the Town.
Andy Haden of HadenPlan Consulting was project consultant, and served as an
independent planning consultant for both the County and the Town. Mr. Haden also
acted as Chair of the Steering Committee.
1.6 Public Consultation
7
The Steering Committee approved a comprehensive public consultation program for the
IDP that included:
Open Houses
Information mail-outs to County and Town landowners
Information mail-outs to stakeholders
Direct consultations with County and Town landowners
Press Releases
Project website
Toll-free phone number
The following is a brief summary of the phases of the public consultation program. A
detailed summary can be found in Appendix 1.
1.6.1 Phase One Public Consultations
The first phase took place in June 2012 in conjunction with an Open House at the
Vegreville Agricultural Society on June 21st. Prior to the Open House a project website
was launched (www.ouridp.com), information packages were mailed to landowners and
stakeholders, press releases were issued to the local media, and the project consultant
obtained a toll-free number. The Vegreville & District Chamber of Commerce assisted by
circulating, twice, notice of the Open House to Chamber members.
The project consultant was in the Vegreville area from June 19th to 30th to attend the
Open House and to meet with County and Town landowners. At the landowner meetings
the project consultant introduced the IDP and discussed the Steering Committee's ideas
for future land use in the Vegreville area. The project consultant met approximately half
of the County and Town landowners residing in the Vegreville area. Landowners living
outside the area were sent letters before and after the first phase, and several outside
landowners contacted the project consultant to discuss the IDP. The project consultant
also met with representatives of local and regional stakeholder groups.
1.6.2 Phase Two Public Consultations
Phase two public consultations included an Open House on May 2, 2013 at the Vegreville
Agricultural Society. The project consultant was in the Vegreville area on May 1st and 2nd
to attend the Open House and to meet with landowners. Phase two public consultations
concluded with a Joint Public Hearing on June 12, 2013 at the Royal Canadian Legion Hall
in Vegreville. A quorum of both Councils was present to hear submissions from the public
on the bylaws.
1.7 Reading this Document
1.7.1 Key Phrases and Terms
8
Key phrases and terms in the IDP have been shortened or converted to an acronym.
When the phrase or term first appears in the text it is written in full, followed by the
acronym in brackets. The acronym is used thereafter.
Original
Phrase/Acronym
Alberta Central East (ACE) Regional Water System
ACE waterline
Alberta Environment & Sustainable Resource Development
AESRD
Alberta Innovates, Technology Futures
AITF
Alberta Transportation
AT
Arable Quarter Sections
Arable land
Area Structure Plan
ASP
Confined feeding operation
CFO
County of Minburn
the County
County / Town IDP Steering Committee
Steering Committee
Dryland Pasture Quarter Sections
Dryland Pasture land
Government of Alberta
the Government
IDP Joint Planning Area
joint planning area
Intermunicipal Development Plan
IDP
Land Use Bylaw
LUB
MDP Map 4 - Flood Topography
MDP Map 4
Municipal Development Plan
MDP
Municipal Government Act
MGA
Municipal Government Board
MGB
Natural Resources Conservation Board
NRCB
North Saskatchewan Regional Plan
NSRP
Town of Vegreville
the Town
Watershed Management Plan
WMP
1.7.2 Advisory Notice
Throughout both the text and mapping of the IDP, multiple references are made to
policies in the County and Town MDPs. For general reference, the reader can refer to the
MDPs posted to the County and Town websites. For official or legal reference to the
MDPs, the reader should refer to the official MDP bylaws at the municipal offices.
9
Part 2 - Land Use Inventory and Analysis
2.1 Introduction
The Town is the largest urban center in the County, located in the western part of the
County (see Map 2, Regional Context). This Part examines land use in the IDP joint
planning area (see Map 3, Joint Planning Area) to identify opportunities and constraints
for future growth. Part 3 covers joint planning area policies and rationale.
2.2 Physical
2.2.1 Landscape / Vermilion River
The Town and surrounding lands in the County are located in the Parkland Natural Region
of east central Alberta. The landscape is gently rolling and the Vermilion River is a
prominent physical feature in the joint planning area.
Headwaters of the Vermilion River lie south of the joint planning area. The river flows
north through the County and the Town in a narrow channel with numerous meanders
throughout the joint planning area (meander scars in the joint planning area show how
the river has changed course over time). These characteristics mean that rapid spring
snowmelt, heavy spring rain, or both, can trigger floods. There is a history of flood events
on the Vermilion River.
2.2.2 Topography
The Town and surrounding area are located within the Vermilion River valley. Land in the
joint planning area gradually rises to the both the east and the west from the river.
Within Town limits, land generally slopes from southwest to northeast to the Vermilion
River, although there are minor variations in topography throughout the Town. Spot
elevations range from 645m in the southwest part of the Town down to 630m in the
northeast at the river - the average elevation is 635m. Slope percentages range from
0.5% to 1.5%.
2.2.3 Soils
Soils in the joint planning area are, under the Canada Land Inventory (CLI), predominantly
Class 2 with some minor soil structure and permeability restrictions.
In the 1980s a pilot project was carried out in the County by the Government to examine
agricultural land in detail for assessment purposes. As a result, the County has some of
the best municipal agricultural land data in Alberta. This data informs the County MDP
policies that define Arable Lands, Arable Quarter Sections, and Dryland Pasture Quarter
Sections.
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
$
)
*
+
&
,
%
-
&
.
/
0
1
2
3
4
1
5
2
3
6
!
"
7
8
9
:
;
<
<
=
>
?
@
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
R
S
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
R
T
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
R
Q
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
R
U
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
V
V
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
V
S
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
V
T
W
X
Y
Z
[
\
Z
]
^
_
W
X
Y
Z
[
\
Z
]
^
^
W
X
Y
Z
[
\
Z
]
^
`
W
X
Y
Z
[
\
Z
]
a
`
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
R
V
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
R
R
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
b
U
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
V
Q
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
V
U
L
M
N
O
L
P
O
Q
V
R
TWP53
RNG15 W4
TWP52
RNG15 W4
TWP51
RNG15 W4
TWP53
RNG14 W4
TWP52
RNG14 W4
TWP51
RNG14 W4
TWP53
RNG13 W4
TWP52
RNG13 W4
TWP51
RNG13 W4
20
31
29
33
21
27
33
31
29
28
27
25
13
15
21
22
23
24
19
17
35
4
3
2
1
12
11
10
9
16
5
6
8
4
3
2
1
5
6
4
3
2
1
5
6
4
3
2
1
5
6
4
3
2
1
5
6
4
3
2
1
5
6
4
3
2
1
5
6
4
3
2
1
5
6
4
3
2
1
12
11
10
9
8
7
11
8
10
7
13
1
9
7
12
11
10
9
8
7
12
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
13
17
15
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
13
17
15
12
11
10
13
15
16
17
32
34
35
8
17
26
29
28
27
25
29
27
25
21
22
23
24
20
19
22
24
20
19
33
31
29
25
26
21
22
20
19
17
15
12
11
10
9
15
18
14
13
17
21
22
23
24
20
19
21
22
23
24
20
19
30
36
34
32
31
35
29
28
27
21
22
23
24
20
19
12
11
23
24
35
25
6
30
18
6
7
31
19
23
24
35
c
d
e
f
g
h
g
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
18
16
25
24
13
7
2
33
31
30
19
18
31
35
33
29
25
27
29
25
35
20
27
25
3
9
12
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
35
18
18
18
18
18
18
21
22
23
23
26
26
26
26
26
26
28
28
28
28
28
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
32
32
32
34
34
34
34
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
p
q
r
s
p
q
r
s
p
q
s
t
s
p
q
u
v
p
q
w
v
v
p
q
s
r
u
p
q
w
v
x
p
q
w
v
x
y
z
u
s
{
y
z
u
s
y
z
u
s
y
z
u
s
y
z
u
s
y
z
u
s
|
}
~
}
}
}
|
|
|
}
|
~
¡
¢
£
¤
}
¥
}
¥
¦
¢
|
}
~
§
§
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¡
©
~
}
~
}
~
¥
ª
ª
}
«
}
~
¬
®
¯
°
±
²
³
´
¯
µ
®
¶
¯
·
¸
¹
¯
²
º
»
¼
¶
»
½
´
¾
¾
»
¿
¯
°
»
¶
À
®
¯
´
Á
´
Â
Ã
¾
Ä
»
½
»
¾
Â
À
»
¯
°
Å
¾
Ã
¯
Æ
Ç
È
É
Ê
Ë
Ì
Í
Î
Ï
Ç
Ð
Ñ
Î
Ï
Ò
Ë
Ó
Ò
Ô
Õ
Ö
×
Ø
Ô
Ù
Ú
Û
Ü
Ý
10
TWP52
RNG15 W4
TWP52
RNG14 W4
33
31
29
28
27
15
21
22
4
3
10
9
16
5
6
4
3
2
1
5
11
8
10
9
33
29
25
26
21
22
20
17
15
32
34
34
36
35
28
16
14
30
!
"
#
$
$
$
%
&
'
(&
)
*
+
+
&
,
-
.
/
0
-
1
/
2
3
(
4
5
-
*
/
6
7
+
3
/
/
*
/
'
8
(
&
3
0
-
1
/
2
3
(
4
9
:
;
<
=
>
:
?
@
A
<
B
;
C
<
D
E
:
F
<
:
?
G
H
I
C
H
J
A
K
K
H
L
<
=
H
C
M
;
<
A
N
A
O
P
K
Q
H
J
H
K
:
O
M
H
<
=
R
K
P
<
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
[
\
]
T
Z
Z
Y
Z
^
_
`
aT
b
b
c
d
e
b
c
f
g
c
b
e
g
c
h
b
c
g
f
e
i
j
k
11
12
The County MDP classifies quarter sections of land with a farmland assessment value
(FAV) of $25,200 or more as Arable agricultural land. Quarter sections with a FAV of
$25,199 or less are classified as Dryland Pasture agricultural land. Almost two-thirds of
the quarter sections in the joint planning area are Arable agricultural lands with an
average FAV of $34,914.
2.3 Human
2.3.1 Population
In the 2011 federal Census the population of Vegreville was 5,720 - an increase of 3.6%
from 5,519 in 2006. This change represents an average annual population growth rate of
0.7%. In 2012, the Town's municipal census recorded a population of 5,758.
The Town's population growth rate is modest but steady. For planning purposes, the MDP
projects the Town's population to increase 1.5% annually over the next twenty years to
7,280.
In the 2011 federal Census the County's population was 3,278 - a decline of 1.2% from
3,319 in 2006.
2.3.2 Economy
Vegreville is a regional center providing a range of services to a regional population of
over 40,000.
The major employment categories in Vegreville (from industry classifications in the 2006
federal Census) are health care and social services, agricultural and resources industries,
retail trade and business services, and other services.
Employment in the County is oriented to the agriculture industry. Almost half of the
County's working population is employed in the agricultural and resource industries,
followed by health care and social services, and other services.
The 2011 Census of Agriculture shows a total of 604 farms in the County. Oilseed and
grain farming is the dominant farm type (333 farms), followed by cattle ranching and
farming (128), other crop production (70), and other animal production (52).
2.3.3 Vermilion River - Flood Plain Designation
Part of the Vermilion River in the County and the Town was designated in 1997 as
floodplain under the AESRD Flood Hazard Identification Program. Designation was based
on the 1994 Vermilion River and Tributary Flood Hazard Study, under the Canada/Alberta
13
Flood Damage Reduction Program (see Map 4A - Opportunities and Constraints,
Vermilion River and Floodplain).
2.3.4 Vermilion River - Watershed Management Plan
A Watershed Management Plan (WMP) has been approved for the Vermilion River. The
WMP recommends actions to be taken in the Vermilion River watershed to meet the
goals of the Government's Water for Life Strategy.
A stakeholder group representing all three levels of government and other stakeholders
with an interest in the Vermilion River watershed prepared the WMP. The WMP was
prepared with support from the North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance (NSWA) - the
Watershed Planning and Advisory Council responsible for preparing an Integrated
Watershed Management Plan for the North Saskatchewan River.
A Committee based in the Vermilion River watershed will implement the WMP.
Implementation will include the part of the Vermilion River that is located in the joint
planning area.
2.4 Transportation Infrastructure
Transportation Infrastructure discussed in this section is shown on Map 4B -
Opportunities and Constraints - Municipal Assets, Transportation and Other
Infrastructure.
2.4.1 Highways 16, 16A and 857
Highway 16, the Trans Canada Yellowhead Highway, is part of Alberta's interprovincial
highway network. Highway 16A is the main east-west access through Vegreville. Highway
857 runs north south through the County and the Town. Highways 16A and 857 both
connect to Highway 16. An internal network of collector and arterial roads in the Town,
and Township and Range roads in the County connect with the three highways.
Highways 16, 16A and 857 are under the jurisdiction of the Government and are operated
and maintained by Alberta Transportation (AT). The Government has designated
Highway 16 for future conversion to a freeway standard - a "primary highway linkage
having regional, provincial and continental connectivity and importance that serves long
distance travel" where "access and egress for vehicular traffic occurs only at grade
separated interchanges".
When the Government upgrades Highway 16 to a freeway standard, the existing
directional split intersections will change. The intersection on the east side of Vegreville
will be replaced by a grade-separated interchange in the east half of 8-52-14-W4.
Highways 16A and Highway 857 will be re-aligned to connect to this interchange. The
TWP52
RNG15 W4
TWP52
RNG14 W4
33
31
29
28
27
15
21
22
23
4
3
2
11
10
9
16
5
6
4
3
2
1
11
10
9
33
25
26
21
22
15
32
34
34
36
35
28
16
14
30
1
!
"
#
$
%
%
&
'
(
)
*
'
+
)
,
-
"
.
"
/
$
%
$
'
)
0
$
#
"
1
%
'
'
,
1
"
$
)
!
"
/
$
%
$
'
)
0
$
#
"
1
%
'
'
,
(
-
.
2
'
$
)
3
4
%
-
)
)
$
)
!
5
"
-
*
'
+
)
,
-
"
.
6
7
8
9
:
;
;
;
<
<
=
>
?
?
=
>
@
<
=
@
>
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
D
I
J
K
F
L
E
M
F
N
O
D
P
F
D
I
Q
R
S
M
R
T
K
U
U
R
V
F
G
R
M
W
E
F
K
X
K
Y
Z
U
[
R
T
R
U
D
Y
W
R
F
G
\
U
Z
F
]
^
_
`
^
a
b
_
_
c
d
e
f
g
h
e
h
i
j
^
g
k
l
c
g
j
e
d
^
h
g
e
j
m
n
i
d
o
h
p
h
c
g
q
h
r
i
d
^
g
k
s
p
c
c
k
_
p
^
h
g
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
{
|
}
y
w
~
w
u
B
y
~
t
v
~
}
|
y
y
u
v
w
x
y
y
y
|
u
B
y
~
{
t
y
w
y
|
|
y
|
u
u
w
~
~
z
=
y
u
=
u
=
}
=
x
|
u
u
w
=
B
y
y
w
|
|
y
x
w
}
y
~
y
|
u
x
~
u
y
~
y
~
u
~
y
|
u
u
|
u
w
u
w
B
~
u
v
w
u
y
u
|
=
14
15
intersection on the west side of Vegreville will be replaced by a diamond interchange in
the existing location.
When Highway 16 is upgraded to a freeway standard, AT will also implement an access
management plan to close existing, at-grade Township and Range road accesses to
Highway 16. The access management plan for Highway 16 between Highway 36 and
Range Road 210 is scheduled for completion in 2013.
The Government has approved the changes to Highway 16 for long-term planning
purposes. Although there is no timetable for the changes, the knowledge that they are
approved Government policy provides certainty and supports the long-term planning
horizon of the IDP.
2.4.2 Rail
CN Rail's right-of-way and rail line parallels Highway 16A through the joint planning area.
The line is part of the Vegreville subdivision from Edmonton to Vermilion and a principal
branch line in CN's network. CN facilities at Vegreville include a passing track and the only
siding between the Walker Yard in north Edmonton and Vermilion.
The line is active with one to four train movements per day. Goods transported include
container traffic, and agriculture, oil, and gas products
2.4.3 Air
The Vegreville Regional Airport is owned and operated by the Town, and is located in the
County in the northeast part of the joint planning area. The airport is protected from
incompatible development by the Vegreville Airport Vicinity Protection Area (AVPA)
Overlay District, and the Height Limitations and Electronic Facilities Protection maps in
the County's Land Use Bylaw.
The airport is registered with Transport Canada, includes a 4,000 ft. asphalt runway, and
is fully operational 24-7 year-round, weather permitting. Airport facilities include private
and commercial leasehold lots and a public terminal with meeting room, washroom and
telephone facilities.
2.5 Other Infrastructure
Other Infrastructure discussed in this section is shown on Map 4B - Opportunities and
Constraints - Municipal Assets, Transportation and Other Infrastructure.
16
2.5.1 Power
ATCO Electric provides power to the joint planning area. The Vegreville substation is
located on the south side of Highway 16 adjacent to Range Road 150. Two 144Kv
transmission lines enter into the substation from the south adjacent to Highway 857, and
a single 144Kv line enters into the substation from the east on the south side of Highway
16.
A 72 KV line exits the substation and runs north through the Town on 60th (Maple) Street.
This 72 KV line currently goes to another substation north of Vegreville and then north to
Willingdon. ATCO Electric plans to re-locate this sub-station and upgrade the voltage to
the new substation to 144Kv. The 72Kv transmission line will be converted to a 25Kv
distribution line.
2.5.2 Oil and gas wells
There are eight active gas wells in the east and northeast parts of the joint planning area.
Five wells are active; the remaining three are drilled and cased. There are fourteen other
abandoned well sites scattered throughout the joint planning area.
2.5.3 Pipelines
Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. operates a major pipeline corridor on the west side of the
Town. The corridor runs north south, bisects the joint planning area, and includes five
sweet gas pipelines. Setbacks from the boundaries of the corridor rights-of-way depend
on the type of development. A service pipeline connects the gas wells in the northeast
part of the joint planning area.
2.6 Municipal Assets and Infrastructure
Municipal Assets discussed in this section, are shown on Map 4B - Opportunities and
Constraints, Municipal Assets and Infrastructure.
2.6.1 Regional water
The Capital Region Vegreville Water Corridor Services Commission provides potable water
to the Town. The regional waterline connects to the Town's reservoir and pump house on
75th Street.
The Alberta Central East Regional Water System (the ACE waterline) originates at a
transmission station on the north side of Township Road 524, west of Highway 857. From
the transmission facility, the main waterline right-of-way runs east on Township Road 524
to the boundary of the joint planning area and beyond (except for a detour around the
south side of the airport). A second waterline right-of-way branches off from the first
TWP52
RNG15 W4
TWP52
RNG14 W4
33
31
29
28
27
15
21
22
23
35
4
3
2
11
10
9
16
5
6
4
3
2
1
11
10
9
33
25
26
21
22
15
32
34
34
36
35
28
16
14
30
26
14
!
"
#
$
#
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
/
0
,
-
.
/
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
:
;
;
;
<
<
=
>
?
?
=
>
@
<
=
@
>
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
D
I
J
K
F
L
E
M
F
N
O
D
P
F
D
I
Q
R
S
M
R
T
K
U
U
R
V
F
G
R
M
W
E
F
K
X
K
Y
Z
U
[
R
T
R
U
D
Y
W
R
F
G
\
U
Z
F
]
^
_
`
a
b
c
_
_
d
e
f
g
h
i
f
i
j
k
l
m
d
h
k
f
e
^
i
h
f
k
]
g
h
i
n
i
_
^
o
p
k
kj
f
k
q
r
e
^
h
k
_
d
e
f
^
f
i
d
h
l
c
f
s
j
e
t
h
u
e
^
k
f
e
g
n
f
g
e
j
v
w
x
y
w
z
{
|
|
w
}
~
~
y
~
{
|
{
x
y
w
~
y
{
|
{
y
~
y
z
w
y
|
{
|
|
x
~
~
w
w
x
{
~
|
w
y
|
{
w
~
w
w
|
|
{
z
w
w
|
|
{
w
|
{
w
~
~
y
w
{
{
|
|
w
x
w
x
~
~
w
w
y
{
{
~
{
~
y
}
{
~
}
y
{
|
w
y
y
~
z
y
{
{
~
{
w
|
{
w
~
y
{
~
y
{
zw
y
{
w
w
w
w
y
v
w
x
y
w
z
{
|
|
w
~
|
~
y
w
x
w
|
~
w
{
|
|
17
18
right-of-way and runs north on Range Road 143 to the north boundary of the joint
planning area and beyond.
2.6.2 Municipal Services
The Town provides urban services. Potable water is distributed from the reservoir on 75th
Street to a second reservoir and pump house in the south-central part of Town.
Sanitary sewer services are based primarily on gravity flow. There is a lift station in the
northwest part of Town, and a second lift station on the east side that sends sewage by
force main to the sewage lagoons.
The Town's sewage lagoons cover a half section of land - S ½ 52-14-W4. There is
significant expansion capacity in the lagoons because they were originally built for a
population of approximately 15,000.
Storm sewer servicing is directed toward five outfalls on the Vermilion River. Three
outfalls connect to a drainage ditch that runs into the North Parkway Drainage System
and then to the river.
The Town's landfill is located on NW 21-52-14-W4. With the recent introduction of a
recycling program, the landfill is expected to last approximately 60 years.
The County provides rural services, including the maintenance and upgrading of Township
and Range roads. Development on County lands requires private water and sewer
systems (i.e. well or cistern, and field, mound, or pump-out tank). Landowners with
access to the ACE waterline may arrange with the County for a waterline connection.
2.7 Land Ownership
The majority of County lands in the joint planning area are full quarter sections, or
remnant quarter sections from which a farm site has been subdivided. Although some
landowners own more than one quarter section, no landowner owns a disproportionate
amount of land in the joint planning area.
Small parcels (i.e. "acreages") in the 2 ac. to 5 ac. range are mostly subdivided farm sites
and are found throughout the joint planning area. Some mid-range parcels (i.e. from 10
ac. to 40 ac.) are located in the southeast part of the joint planning area.
In the Town, parcels in the joint planning area are either small and suitable for one
residence or other limited development, or are significantly larger with potential for
future subdivision and development (subject to site suitability). All parcels are individually
owned.
19
2.8 Land Use
2.8.1 Existing Land Use
Agriculture is the dominant land use in the joint planning area. Whether the lands are in
the County or the Town, most lands are used for agricultural production.
Non-agricultural land uses are found throughout the joint planning area. South of
Highway 16 the original Town water reservoir has been converted into Rainbow Park, a
public recreational facility. The ATCO Electric sub-station is located on the same quarter
section. The Vegreville Regional Museum is located on the south side of Highway 16A
adjacent to the Town boundary.
To the east and northeast, Town-owned and operated facilities include the sewage
lagoons, the landfill, the cemetery, and the Vegreville regional airport. The Vegreville
Kinsmen Golf Course, and a gun range operated by the Vegreville Wildlife Federation are
privately owned and operated facilities west of the airport. A private gravel stockpile
operation is located adjacent to the Vermilion River.
A manufactured / modular dwelling community is located west of the golf course. The
Vegreville Seed Cleaning Plant and the ACE waterline facility are located west of Highway
857 on the north side of Township Road 524.
Land use on the west side includes the Nova Gas Transmission pipeline corridor and the
Alberta Innovates, Technology Futures (AITF) facility and associated lands.
2.8.2 Existing Zoning
The County and Town Land Use Bylaws divide the municipalities into land use districts, or
"zones". Zoning represents the development rights of landowners at the present time.
Zoning in the joint planning area is shown on Map 4C - Opportunities and Constraints -
Zoning.
Zoning on County lands is mostly Agricultural on the north side of the joint planning area,
and Direct Control on the south side. Rural Industrial zoning applies to the E ½ 16-52-14
W4. Recreation and Resort zoning applies in 29-52-14-W4 for the golf course and gun
range. Agricultural zoning and the AVPA Overlay apply to the Vegreville Regional Airport.
Zoning in the Town is consistent with the land use designations in the Town's MDP.
2.9 Confined feeding operations (CFOs)
CFOs are governed by the Agricultural Operations Practices Act and are regulated by the
Natural Resources Conservation Board. The NRCB is required to deny CFO applications if
the application is inconsistent with land use policies in the municipality's MDP. If the
20
NRCB receives a CFO application on land that is also under the jurisdiction of an IDP, the
NRCB reviews the IDP for direction.
The County's MDP states that "no new or expanding CFO shall be located within the areas
identified on Map 3 Confined Feeding Operations Prohibited Areas." Map 3 of the MDP
identifies large areas of the County in which new CFOs or expanding CFOS "shall not be
Suggested blank page for Map 4C - Opportunities and Constraints -
Zoning.
Rge.Rd.153
Rge.Rd.152
Rge.Rd.151
Rge.Rd.150
Rge.Rd.144
Rge.Rd.143
Rge.Rd.142
Twp.Rd.524
Twp.Rd.522
Rge.Rd.154
Rge.Rd.145
TWP52
RNG15 W4
TWP52
RNG14 W4
33
31
29
28
27
15
21
22
23
4
3
2
11
10
9
16
5
6
4
3
2
1
11
10
9
33
25
26
21
22
15
Vermilion River
Twp.Rd.523
32
34
34
36
35
28
16
14
30
1
Vermilion River
I
C5
P
R5
UR
UR
P
UR
UR/P
UR
M1
M1
M2
C3
£
¤
857
£
¤
857
(/
16A
(/
16
(/
16
(/
16A
(/
16
(/
16
µ
1:35,000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0.25
Km
County of Minburn - Town of Vegreville
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Map 4c.
Opportunities and Constraints - Land Use Districts
("Zoning")
C3 - Highway Commercial
C5 - Service Commercial
I - Institutional
M1 - Business Industrial
M2 - Heavy Industrial
P - Community
R5 - Large Lot Residential
UR - Urban Reserve
Vegreville Town Boundary
Joint Planning Area Boundary
Agricultural
Direct Control
Recreation/Resort
Rural Industrial
Airport Overlay
County Land Use Districts
Town Land Use Districts
Note: Land Use Districts on Town lands in the joint planning area
are proposed, and are subject to Town Council's adoption
of proposed Land Use Bylaw 02-2013. Land Use Districts on
County lands in the joint planning area are as shown in the
County of Minburn Land Use Bylaw 1218-12, and are provided
for information purposes only. Any official or legal inquiry regarding
the County land use districts should be made to the official Land
Use Bylaw at the County Office.
21
allowed". The joint planning area is entirely located within one of these areas; therefore
the County prohibition on CFOs also applies in the joint planning area.
2.10 Summary - Constraints and Opportunities
From the above inventory of land use and land use characteristics in the joint planning
area, the following are constraints to development.
Vermilion River and floodplain
The Vermilion River floodplain is a constraint to growth.
Agricultural land
The bulk of the Arable agricultural lands are located to the east, west and north of the
Town, and the lands to the east are also constrained by development restrictions
associated with the sewage lagoons, landfill, and airport. Dryland Pasture agricultural
lands in the south are constrained by the floodplain and by AT's future Highway 16
interchange.
Linear
The west side of the joint planning area is constrained by the Nova Gas Transmission
pipeline corridor. This north-south corridor lies at right angles to the likely westward
expansion of the Town.
Infrastructure
On the east side of the joint planning area, the airport, sewage lagoons and landfill have
associated regulations, at either the municipal or provincial level, that place limitations on
development that can occur on adjacent lands. AT regulations have an influence on
development adjacent to Highways 16, 16A and 857.
The following characteristics represent opportunities for development:
Vermilion River
The Vermilion River is a natural feature and amenity with potential for development of
public and open space lands for passive or low-intensity recreational uses.
Topography
Outside of the Vermilion River floodplain, soils and slopes in the joint planning area
support development.
Servicing
The Town's water and sewer services can support growth - water is provided by a
regional waterline and the sewage lagoons have significant expansion capacity.
Infrastructure
22
Road, rail and the airport serve the joint planning area. Long-term improvements to
Highway 16 are known at this time and can be integrated into the IDP land use concept
and policies. Rail and airport facilities have potential for expansion.
In sum, apart from the Vermilion River floodplain, the remaining constraints have a
relatively low impact on the development potential of lands in the joint planning area.
The majority of lands in the joint planning area are suitable for development.
23
Part 3 - LAND USE POLICIES AND CONCEPT
This Part includes the land use policies and the Land Use Concept for the joint planning
area. Policies in this Part apply only to lands in the joint planning area. Lands outside the
joint planning area in either the County or the Town are not subject to the IDP or its
policies.
3.1
Joint Planning Area Policies
3.1.1 The joint planning area is defined as the lands lying between an inner boundary in
the Town, and an outer boundary in the County (see Map 3 - Joint Planning Area).
3.1.2 The joint planning area boundaries are subject to periodic review and amendment.
Rationale
The joint planning area satisfies the requirement of the MGA for the IDP to include "those
areas of land lying within the boundaries of the municipalities as they consider necessary."
The inner boundary of the joint planning area is related to the Town's "urban footprint" -
those lands developed for urban uses at urban densities with urban services (especially
water and sewer). Town lands in the joint planning area have not been developed for
urban uses with the associated densities and services. These lands outside the "urban
footprint" define the inner boundary of the joint planning area.
Highway 16 was chosen as a logical boundary to define the outer boundary to the south
and west. The exceptions are four quarter sections south of Highway 16 that have been
included to incorporate the Rainbow Park public recreation facility and the ATCO Electric
substation on the south half of section 7-52-14-W4, and the approved future Highway 16
interchange on the south half of 8-52-14-W4.
The east side of the outer boundary is defined by the setbacks associated with the Town's
sewage lagoons and the landfill. Government regulations do not allow the County to
approve certain types of subdivision and/or development within prescribed setbacks
from an operating wastewater treatment plant and/or an operating landfill.
The north side of the outer boundary was adopted as it was proposed as shown in the
County MDP on Map 2A - West Area.
The Alberta Innovates, Technology Futures (AITF) facility is on urban services and deemed
to be within the urban footprint. Undeveloped lands surrounding the AITF facility are
included in the joint planning area.
24
As the Town grows, Town lands in the joint planning area will be developed, the inner
boundary of the joint planning area will change, and it will be necessary to amend the IDP
to adjust the inner boundary. The County and the Town may also agree to amend the
outer boundary of the joint planning area.
3.2
Planning Horizon Policies
3.2.1 The planning horizon for the IDP is fifty (50) years, to 2063 - the period of time that
the County and Town are looking into the future to set the IDP vision and policies.
3.2.2 The planning horizon is subject to review and amendment, if necessary.
Rationale
The IDP must take a long-term view to serve the growth and development interests of the
County and Town. A fifty-year planning horizon, for example, allows the future Highway
16 interchange to be recognized in the IDP.
The existing land supply is appropriate for a fifty year planning horizon, but this does not
mean that the County and Town expect these lands to be fully developed in fifty years.
3.3
Existing Planning Policies
3.3.1 The IDP recognizes and affirms the existing land use districting (i.e. "zoning") in the
County and Town Land Use Bylaws as shown on Map 4C - Opportunities and Constraints -
Zoning.
3.3.2 The IDP recognizes and affirms the future land use in the County and Town MDPs as
shown on Map 6 - Future Land Use.
Rationale
The County and Town recently revised their MDPs, which involved a significant
investment in time, resources, and public consultation processes. The revised MDPs
provided a comprehensive foundation for the IDP policies.
3.4
Vermilion River and Floodplain Policies
3.4.1 The IDP recognizes and affirms existing policies in the County and Town MDPs with
respect to land use and development on lands within the Vermilion River floodplain.
3.4.2 Map 4A, Constraints and Opportunities - Vermilion River Floodplain shows the
designated floodplain (i.e. floodway and flood fringe) that is maintained by AESRD and
shown on the AESRD website (http://www.envinfo.gov.ab.ca/FloodHazard).
25
3.4.3 The County and Town agree on four quarter sections for further floodplain study:
SE 07-52-14-W4
SW 07-52-14-W4
SE 30-52-14-W4, and
SW 30-52-14-W4.
The study will be outlined in a Terms of Reference to be prepared by the IDP Committee
and approved by the Councils. The Terms of Reference may identify additional lands for
study. The Terms of Reference will be developed in collaboration with AESRD (and see
Appendix 3).
3.4.4 The County and Town will formally request AESRD participation in, support for, and
approval of any other further floodplain studies by the County and the Town.
Rationale
The MGA and the Subdivision and Development Regulation confer authority on
municipalities to address land use in relation to hazard lands, such as floodplains. This
authority is exercised in statutory plans such as this IDP, as well as MDPs and Land Use
Bylaws.
3.5
Vermilion River - Other Policies
3.5.1 The County and Town will collaborate and work with the appropriate authorities
and/or organizations that will implement the Vermilion River Watershed Management
Plan.
3.5.2 The County and Town may collaborate to explore the recreation and open space
potential of the Vermilion River, and may seek the participation of the Government, the
Watershed Management Plan Implementation Committee, and other agencies and/or
third parties.
Rationale
The integrated nature of the Vermilion River Watershed Management Plan will involve
the County and the Town as land use authorities. It will be in the interests of the County
and Town to collaborate with the development of the Watershed Management Plan for
the Vermilion River. The Vermilion River is also a natural asset that has the potential to
contribute recreation and open space lands and services to the area.
3.6
Agriculture and Agricultural Land Policies
3.6.1 All agricultural land has value for agriculture. The IDP strikes a balance between
preserving agricultural land for agriculture, and acknowledging that in the long-term,
some agricultural lands will be required for urban expansion and non-agricultural uses.
26
3.6.2 The IDP recognizes and affirms the policies in the County MDP for Arable Lands,
Arable Quarter Sections, and Dryland Pasture Quarter Sections as the basis for
agricultural land policies in the IDP. Arable and Dryland Pasture lands are shown on Map
5 - Agricultural Lands.
3.6.3 Priority will be placed on the preservation of Arable lands for agricultural production
and agricultural uses.
3.6.4 Urban expansion may occur on Arable lands where necessary in order to logically
extend the Town's urban land uses and services, and where there are no options to
expand onto Dryland Pasture lands.
3.6.5 Non-agricultural development will be directed to Dryland Pasture lands. Arable
lands may be considered for non-agricultural development if the County and the Town
are satisfied that no Dryland Pasture lands are available to support the proposed
development.
3.6.6 The IDP recognizes and affirms the policies in the County MDP and Land Use Bylaw
regarding the subdivision of agricultural land.
Rationale
The County's MDP states that "Agriculture is the County's single most important land use.
It is not only an economic activity, but a lifestyle that is considered valuable to the
residents. The loss of arable land to non-agricultural uses threatens to erode this resource
by reducing the amount of productive land available for farming." Vegreville's historical
and ongoing importance as an agricultural service center is similarly recognized in the
Town's MDP.
Accordingly, agriculture must remain central to the local economy, and agricultural land
must be preserved to maintain the role of agriculture in the local economy.
While the IDP must support agriculture and maintain agricultural land for agricultural
uses, in the long-term the Town will have to expand onto agricultural land. Ideally, future
urban expansion will be directed to Dryland Pasture land. However, the Town may
eventually have to expand and logically extend urban services onto Arable land. The IDP
accommodates this, subject to the appropriate demonstration of need.
3.7
Confined Feeding Operations Policy
3.7.1 New confined feeding operations (CFOs) shall not be allowed, and existing CFOs
shall not be allowed to expand.
TWP52
RNG15 W4
TWP52
RNG14 W4
33
31
29
28
27
15
21
22
23
4
3
2
11
10
9
16
5
6
4
3
2
1
11
10
9
33
25
26
21
22
15
32
34
34
36
35
28
16
14
30
1
!
"
#
$
#
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
/
0
,
-
.
/
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
7
:
;
<
<
7
=
>
?
@
A
>
B
@
C
D
9
E
F
>
;
@
G
H
<
D
@
@
;
@
8
I
9
7
D
A
>
B
@
C
D
9
E
I
9
D
J
<
7
I
8
9
;
K
B
<
G
B
9
D
<
L
D
@
C
M
9
E
<
D
@
C
H
D
N
G
B
9
7
I
8
9
;
K
B
<
G
B
9
D
<
L
D
@
C
O
>
G
P
<
D
N
N
;
Q
;
7
C
R
P
>
B
@
G
E
S
O
>
G
P
<
D
N
N
;
Q
;
7
C
R
=
>
?
@
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Y
Y
Z
Z
[
\
]
]
[
\
^
Z
[
^
\
_
`
a
b
c
d
e
f
b
g
h
i
d
j
c
k
d
l
m
b
n
d
b
g
o
p
q
k
p
r
i
s
s
p
t
d
e
p
k
u
c
d
i
v
i
w
x
s
y
p
r
p
s
b
w
u
p
d
e
z
s
x
d
h
x
w
{
|
}
q
k
i
v
c
s
e
c
k
x
s
~
x
d
27
28
Rationale
Confined feeding operations are under the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources
Conservation Board (NRCB). The NRCB is the approving authority for new or expanding
CFOs under the Agricultural Operations Practices Act.
The NRCB must consider the MDP when it makes a decision on a new or expanding CFO.
The NRCB must deny the application if it is inconsistent with the land use provisions of
the MDP. The NRCB will consider an IDP as well and, therefore, the MDP and the IDP
must be consistent with each other to provide clear direction to the NRCB.
3.8
Servicing Policies
3.8.1 The Town currently provides and will continue to provide urban services for Town
lands. Urban services are, most notably, water and sewer, as well as urban standards
roads (i.e. pavement, curb and gutter) and, where required, storm sewers. Development
that requires urban services will be directed to locate in the Town.
3.8.2 The County provides and will continue to provide rural services for County lands.
Rural services are, most notably, rural standard Township and Range roads (i.e. gravel
surface, open ditch). Development is serviced by private water and sewer systems (i.e.
wells or cisterns, and holding tanks or fields). Development that requires rural services
will be directed to locate in the County.
3.8.3 Logical extension of urban services to support urban expansion is anticipated in the
long-term and will be accommodated through annexation.
Rationale
Through the IDP planning process, the County and the Town have reviewed the
infrastructure/municipal services that they provide. The result in the IDP is a clear
distinction with respect to the services that the County and Town will provide to support
future development.
3.9
Residential Land Use Policies
3.9.1 In the Town's MDP, a number of small pockets of land and a larger area in the
northeast are designated for residential uses. However, the development potential of the
larger area is impacted by the floodplain. Therefore, the bulk of the Town's designated
residential land is located in the southwest corner of the Town, south of 55th Avenue, and
west of 60th Street. The County and the Town agree that this will be the primary direction
for future residential growth in the long-term. As the southwest residential lands are
developed and the Town's residential land supply is consumed, the County and Town will
discuss urban expansion and annexation to the west onto County lands.
29
3.9.2 The Town will ensure that the southwest residential lands are developed subject to
the Area Structure Plan policies of the Town's Municipal Development Plan.
3.9.3 The existing manufactured / modular dwelling community located on SE 30-52-14-
W4 is a non-conforming use under the Agricultural zoning on the land. This use is allowed
to remain on an "as is" basis pursuant to the non-conforming use provisions of the
Municipal Government Act. Redevelopment of the lands is limited to agricultural uses
unless, at the time of re-development, the land is required for urban expansion and
extension of urban services.
3.9.4 New manufactured/modular dwelling communities as defined by the County's MDP
and LUB shall not be allowed.
3.9.5 Acreage residential subdivision as defined by the County's MDP and LUB shall not be
allowed.
3.9.6 The IDP recognizes and affirms the Rural Residential Subdivision provisions in the
County's MDP and LUB for lands with Agricultural zoning.
Rationale
Housing stock in the Town is predominantly single-family residential. There are
opportunities for infill residential development, and the Town's MDP provides direction
for but does not prescribe increased residential density. Single-family residential housing
will continue to be the most popular housing form for the foreseeable future.
The Town has a substantial residential land supply within existing Town limits. Annexation
of County land for residential development is anticipated only in the long-term. The IDP
highlights the southwest residential lands because this is the largest block of land within
the Town for future residential growth. The southwest residential lands also lend
themselves to comprehensive planning under one or more Area Structure Plans, and to
logical extension of urban services.
The IDP strikes a balance on rural residential subdivision on County lands. The IDP
maintains the opportunity for landowners to subdivide existing farm sites and other
residences under Agricultural zoning. Limiting rural residential subdivision maintains large
agricultural parcels for agricultural use and, in the long-term, possible urban expansion.
Acreage residential subdivision fragments agricultural land, impedes urban expansion,
and may introduce land use incompatibilities between residential and agricultural uses.
30
3.10
Industrial and Commercial Land Use Policies
3.10.1 The County and Town agree that the preferred direction for long-term growth of
industrial land uses is to the east.
3.10.2 The County and the Town agree that it will be to the benefit of both municipalities
to collaborate on joint Area Structure Plans (ASPs) to increase the commercial and
industrial land supply.
3.10.3 The first joint ASP priority is for lands in the County on the east side of Town.
Section 16-52-15-W4 is already designated in the County MDP for a Proposed County
West Industrial Park Area Structure Plan. This joint ASP will include these lands and also
address:
i.
Recognition of the existing Rural Industrial zoning on the east half of section 16,
52-14-W4.
ii.
Inclusion of the following additional lands in the Plan:
a. Pt. SE 17-52-14-W4, north of Highway 16A and the CN Rail right-of-way,
b. NE 17-52-14-W4, and
c. Pt. NW and NE 9-52-14-W4, north of the CN Rail right-of-way.
iii.
Internal road circulation within the Plan area,
iv.
Integration of internal roads with existing County and Town municipal roads,
v.
The limited utility of the intersection of Range Road 143 and Highway 16 because
of poor sightlines at this intersection,
vi.
Collaborating with Alberta Transportation to integrate the existing and future local
road network with AT's proposed Highway 16 interchange,
vii.
Collaborating with CN Rail to address the possibility of adding a spur line to
provide increased rail service in the Plan area,
viii.
The development of urban and rural services in the Plan area,
ix.
The proximity of the Plan area to the Town's sewage lagoons, and
x.
A generalized land use concept for appropriate industrial land uses and
complimentary commercial land uses that must be compatible with adjacent land
uses in both the County and the Town.
3.10.4 The County and Town agree that there are other joint ASP opportunities to
support industrial and commercial land uses:
i) West of the Highway 857/Township Road 524 intersection, and on the north and south
sides of Township Road 524, there are existing commercial, light industrial and
infrastructure uses. The Town has designated lands west of Highway 857 and adjacent to
Township Road 524 as "Potential Industrial Park" (see Map 6 - Future Land Use). With
paved road access provided on Township Road 524 and Highway 857, there is potential
for a joint ASP in this area that would address, but not be limited to:
Determining the lands to be included in the ASP, including lands with Highway 857
and Township Road 524 frontage,
31
Internal road circulation within the Plan area,
Integration of internal roads with existing County and Town municipal roads,
Collaborating with Alberta Transportation to integrate the existing and future local
road network with AT's requirements for development adjacent to Highway 857,
The development of urban and rural services within the Plan area, and
A generalized land use concept for appropriate light industrial and commercial
land uses that must be compatible with adjacent land uses in both the County and
the Town.
ii) In the long-term, AT's future Highway 16 interchange will severely limit direct access to
Highway 16. However, it is expected that access to Highway 16A and 857 will continue,
subject to AT requirements with respect to service roads, access spacing, etc. This may
generate interest in the development of lands close to the interchange, based on access
to Highways 16A or 857. If this occurs the County and the Town will consider the
preparation of an ASP for this area.
3.10.5 The County and Town will monitor oil well, gas well, and pipeline developments. If
the County and Town believe that development of new energy infrastructure will
interfere with or prejudice future urban expansion or the development potential of lands,
the County and Town will aggressively pursue consultation with provincial regulatory
authorities and energy infrastructure proponents to prevent the loss of developable land.
Rationale
Both the County and the Town want to support new commercial and industrial growth so
that both municipalities can grow. Both municipalities identified opportunities for this
type of development in their new MDPs. Collaboration under the auspices of the IDP
allows the County and the Town to combine resources, and to produce pro-active plans
to attract new economic development. The plans identified above address a range of
commercial and industrial land uses, provide developers with a choice between urban
and rural services, and create the potential for short, medium, and long-term plans.
3.11
Transportation Infrastructure Policies
3.11.1 The IDP recognizes AT's long-term plans to upgrade Highway 16 to a freeway
standard:
i.
Upgrading of the east interchange on Highway 16, and the re-alignment of
Highways 16A and 857 to connect with the interchange,
ii.
Upgrading the west interchange on Highway 16 (i.e. a diamond interchange at the
existing location utilizing the existing structure), and
iii.
The proposed access management plan (in progress) for at-grade Township and
Range road accesses to Highway 16.
32
3.11.2 In light of AT's long-term plans for Highway 16, and in consultation with AT, the
County and Town will give careful consideration to any interim development proposals
that propose at-grade access to Highway 16.
3.11.3 The County and Town will periodically monitor and update AT's Highway 16
interchange and access management plans.
3.11.4 In addition to a possible spur line on the east side of the Town as mentioned in
section 3.2.7.3, the County and Town will approach CN Rail to discuss further
opportunities to maximize the use of existing CN rail infrastructure.
3.11.5 The County and Town will collaborate to increase development opportunities at
the Regional Airport, while recognizing the need to protect airport operations from
incompatible land uses.
Rationale
Knowing AT's long-term plans for Highway 16 provides certainty and benefit. The
Highway 16 interchange has the potential to significantly impact both the County and the
Town. The IDP must ensure that when the interchange is built and the access
management plan is implemented, the impacts have been anticipated and planned for to
maximize the benefit to the County and the Town.
When an interchange is built on Highway 16 and access from local roads to Highway 16 is
closed, the focus of development interest in the area may shift from an east-west
orientation focused on Highway 16 to a north-south orientation focused on Highways 16A
and 857, and adjacent lands.
3.12
Other Infrastructure Policies
3.12.1 The County, as a partner in the ACE waterline, will support waterline connections
for uses that are consistent with the policies of this IDP. Examples include connection to
individual residences and other developments that can be serviced by private, on-site
sewage systems.
3.12.2 Development that proposes to connect to the ACE waterline for water service and
that needs urban sewer services will be directed to locate in the Town.
3.12.3 Development within 30m of the Nova Gas Transmission Limited pipeline corridor is
subject to consultation with the County, Town, and Nova Gas to assess the impact of the
proposed development on the pipeline corridor and to determine required setbacks.
33
3.12.4 The County and Town will periodically monitor and update utilities changes, and
oil, gas and pipeline activity, including but not limited to changes in utility service levels,
new and/or abandoned well sites, and new service pipelines.
Rationale
The County recognizes that the ACE waterline provides a benefit to the County, subject to
this IDP and its policies. The County and Town recognize the need to protect the NGTL
pipeline corridor.
3.13
Future Land Use
The County completed a new MDP in 2010. The Town completed its new MDP in 2012. In
both cases, the MDPs provide a vision for short to medium term land use in the
municipalities (i.e. typically 10-25 years). Policy 3.1.3.2 of this IDP recognizes and affirms
the future land uses shown in the MDPs (see Map 6 Future Land Use):
In the County, all lands are designated for Agricultural / Rural Development.
In the Town:
i.
Lands west of Highway 857 and south of Township Road 524 are designated
Potential Industrial Park,
ii.
Lands east of Highway 857 and south of Township Road 524 are designated Future
Residential,
iii.
Land east of 43rd Street and north of 55th Avenue is designated Residential,
iv.
The parcel of land north of Highway 16A and west of Range Road 144 that was
annexed in 2010 is designated General Industrial,
v.
Lands south of Highway 16A and east of 47th (Bruce) Street are designated Natural
Areas and Recreation, except for a strip of land fronting 47th Street that is
designated General Industrial,
vi.
Lands west of 60th Street and south of 55th Avenue are designated Future
Residential,
vii.
Lands between Highway 16A and 55th Avenue, east of 75th Street are designated
Potential
Service
Commercial
/
Light
Industrial,
Residential
and
Commercial/Highway Commercial, and
viii.
AITF lands west of 75th Street are designated Community / Institutional incl.
Schools.
3.14
Land Use Concept
With a 50-year planning horizon, the IDP provides a long-term vision for future land use.
Accordingly, the MDP visions act as the base for future land use in the joint planning area.
The IDP builds on this base, both extending the MDP visions and adding new elements as
TWP52
RNG15 W4
TWP52
RNG14 W4
33
31
29
28
27
15
21
22
4
3
2
1
10
9
16
5
6
4
3
2
1
11
10
9
33
9
25
26
21
22
15
32
34
34
36
35
28
16
14
30
!
"
#
$
#
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
/
0
,
-
.
/
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
:
;
<
=
;
8
>
<
?
@
;
8
>
<
A
B
C
B
<
D
E
F
B
G
=
@
B
H
9
I
B
G
=
9
>
<
J
;
=
;
8
B
@
B
H
9
I
B
G
=
9
>
<
K
B
G
B
8
>
<
L
G
I
;
H
=
8
9
>
<
M
D
=
B
G
=
9
>
<
N
B
8
C
9
:
B
O
D
F
F
B
8
:
9
>
<
?
P
9
7
Q
=
L
G
I
;
H
=
8
9
>
<
O
D
F
F
B
8
:
9
>
<
>
G
I
R
9
7
Q
S
>
T
M
D
=
B
G
=
9
>
<
L
G
I
;
H
=
8
9
>
<
M
>
8
U
O
D
F
F
;
G
9
=
T
L
G
H
=
9
=
;
=
9
D
G
>
<
V
>
=
;
8
>
<
6
8
B
>
H
>
G
I
@
B
:
8
B
>
=
9
D
G
W
=
9
<
9
=
9
B
H
X
Y
Z
[
\
]
]
]
^
^
_
`
a
a
_
`
b
^
_
b
`
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
f
k
l
m
h
n
g
o
h
p
q
f
r
h
f
k
s
t
u
o
t
v
m
w
w
t
x
h
i
t
o
y
g
h
m
z
m
{
|
w
}
t
v
t
w
f
{
y
t
h
i
~
w
|
h
l
|
{
g
i
g
o
t
|
h
t
¡
¢
£
£
¤
¥
¦
¦
¡
¦
§
¦
¨
©
©
¢
¨
©
©
¦
¦
£
¤
ª
£
£
¡
£
«
§
£
¦
¦
¡
¦
¦
§
£
¨
§
£
£
¦
§
¨
©
£
¦
¤
34
35
addressed in this document. Map 7 - Land Use Concept shows the long-term land uses
identified in the IDP:
i)
Further floodplain study on SE 7-52-14-W4, SW 7-52-14-W4, SE 30-52-14-W4, and
SW 30-52-14-W4
ii)
A joint Area Structure Plan on the east side of Town for industrial and
complimentary commercial uses, and
iii)
Potential annexation of Town owned and operated assets.
iv)
A joint ASP for commercial and light industrial uses in the vicinity of Highway 857
and Township Road 524,
v)
ASP(s) for the development of the southwest residential lands and, once these
lands are built out, potential annexation of County lands to support the Town's
long-term residential growth, and
vi)
A joint ASP for the lands adjacent to the future Highway 16 interchange.
Any or all of these land use initiatives would be further supported by a Growth
Management Plan by the Town to further analyze the capacity of the existing and future
land supply to absorb growth. This plan would complement the land use inventory
required under policy 4.1.5
3.15
North Saskatchewan Regional Plan
The County and Town will be affected by the development of the North Saskatchewan
Regional Plan (NSRP). A Regional Advisory Council (RAC) will prepare the NSRP and
recommend a draft Plan to Cabinet for approval. The Government appoints RAC
members.
The County and the Town, and the Town of Vermilion, City of Lloydminster, and County of
Vermilion River have all participated in sub-regional planning by adopting IDPs. The five
municipalities, therefore, have a unique perspective to offer to the RAC and the NSRP.
The County and Town may discuss with these neighboring municipalities a RAC
appointment to represent the sub-regional perspective and interests of the five
municipalities.
3.16
Future Planning
Adoption of the IDP will create other opportunities for the County and Town to
collaborate on planning work that will benefit the area. Examples could include:
i) Vermilion River Recreation and Open Space Plan
The Vermilion River is a constraint because of the floodplain. The Vermilion River is also a
natural amenity and, therefore represents an opportunity to determine its recreational
and open space potential.
TWP52
RNG15 W4
TWP52
RNG14 W4
33
31
29
28
27
15
21
22
23
4
3
2
11
10
9
16
5
6
4
3
2
1
11
10
9
33
25
26
21
22
15
32
34
34
36
35
28
16
14
30
1
!
"
#
$
#
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
/
0
,
-
.
/
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
:
;
8
6
<
=
=
>
?
<
@
A
B
C
9
7
>
D
E
=
A
B
9
F
C
?
6
7
9
7
8
;
E
=
A
B
9
F
C
?
6
7
9
7
8
;
G
;
H
A
>
;
B
9
A
@
<
?
=
9
;
B
9
A
@
<
F
B
B
;
I
@
9
A
=
B
6
7
9
7
8
;
J
A
K
:
L
@
D
M
N
O
B
9
;
8
P
:
@
B
K
;
Q
R
S
T
U
V
V
V
W
W
X
Y
Z
Z
X
Y
[
W
X
[
Y
\
]
^
_
`
a
b
c
_
d
e
f
a
g
`
h
a
i
j
_
k
a
_
d
l
m
n
h
m
o
f
p
p
m
q
a
b
m
h
r
`
a
f
s
f
t
u
p
v
m
o
m
p
_
t
r
m
a
b
w
p
u
a
e
u
t
x
y
z
u
a
{
|
}
m
^
_
a
s
m
t
b
36
37
ii) Joint Transportation Master Plan
The scope and scale of future planning proposed above could have a significant impact on
the transportation network. In the long-term, the County and Town may decide that a
joint Transportation Master Plan will ensure that the transportation elements of the
various plans above are integrated with Town arterial roads, Township and Range roads
in the County, and land use.
3.17
Annexation and Urban Expansion Policies
3.17.1 The Town has expressed an interest in annexation to acquire municipal assets that
the Town owns and operates, and to bring these assets under the Town's direct control
and jurisdiction. Assets include the sewage lagoons, the landfill, the airport, the
cemetery, the museum and Rainbow Park. The County recognizes the Town's interest,
and is open to further discussions on this matter
3.17.2 The County and Town recognize and affirm the following principles with respect to
annexation:
i.
The Town will need to annex land from the County in the future.
ii.
Lands will be protected from interim development and land uses that could
interfere with or prejudice future urban expansion.
iii.
Annexation must facilitate an orderly, economical and beneficial extension of the
Town's land uses and urban services.
iv.
Annexation may include Arable agricultural lands when necessary, for the logical
expansion of the Town's land uses and urban services.
v.
Annexation must be based on demonstrated need.
vi.
The County and Town will adhere to the MGA annexation process.
vii.
A comprehensive consultation process must inform annexation.
viii.
The County and Town agree to try to achieve a mutually agreed upon annexation
application prior to submission of the application to the MGB.
3.17.3 The County and Town recognize and affirm the following criteria with respect to a
proposed annexation:
i.
Demonstration of need will be based on the data generated under section 4.15.
Metrics and Monitoring. This may also include but not be limited to population
growth trends, servicing capacities, land supply and consumption, development
38
densities, and known and forecast land use trends that are evident at the time the
annexation application is prepared.
ii.
A proposed annexation must be consistent with County and Town statutory plans
(i.e. IDP, MDPs, and ASPs) in effect at the time.
iii.
The policies of the IDP with respect to Arable and Dryland Pasture agricultural
lands must be respected. Proposed annexation that includes Arable agricultural
lands must demonstrate and explain why this is necessary.
iv.
The issue of services will be consistent with the distinction between urban and
rural service standards in section 3.2.5 Servicing Policies.
v.
The comprehensive consultation process will include (and is not limited to)
consultation with affected landowners, the public and stakeholders, the IDP
Committee, and the Councils and Administrations of the County and the Town.
vi.
The County and the Town will strive to achieve as much landowner support for a
proposed annexation as possible.
vii.
A proposed annexation must address and respect important environmental and
natural features.
viii.
A proposed annexation should follow legal boundaries and/or natural features
wherever possible to avoid creating fragmented land ownership.
ix.
The County and Town will review tax rates for proposed annexation lands to
determine the costs of annexation, what the effects of annexation will be on
affected landowners, and how those effects may be addressed by the County and
the Town.
x.
The two Councils may consider any other matter in an annexation application that
they agree is necessary
3.18
Economic Development Policies
3.18.1 With the IDP as a framework for future land use and development in the area, the
County and Town will continue to collaborate with the Vegreville and District Chamber of
Commerce, the Vegreville Economic Development Board, and Alberta Innovates
Technology Futures (AITF) on economic development in the area.
39
3.18.2 The focus of collaboration will be on supporting expansion of existing
development, and attracting new growth and development to support future job growth
and diversification of employment opportunities in the area. Emphasis will be placed on
the area's assets and advantages:
i.
Intermunicipal co-operation between County and Town
ii.
Educated, skilled workforce
iii.
Regional commercial, medical and professional services
iv.
Transportation linkages, i.e. Highway 16, CN Rail, regional airport
v.
Servicing capacity, i.e. regional water, sewage lagoons
vi.
Proximity to the Capital Region
3.18.3 The County and Town will explore opportunities for value-added manufacturing
and product development related to AITF activities and initiatives.
40
PART 4 - IMPLEMENTATION
The MGA requires an IDP to include provisions that address the administration of the
plan, amendments to the plan, and repealing the plan. The IDP must also include a
procedure to resolve or attempt to resolve any conflict that arises between the
municipalities that have adopted the plan.
4.1 PLAN ADMINISTRATION
4.1.1 Administrative Body - IDP Committee
4.1.1.1 Following adoption of the IDP, the Councils will establish an IDP Committee to
administer and implement the IDP.
4.1.1.2 The IDP Committee will consist of the Reeve and 2 Councillors from the County,
and the Mayor and two Councillors from the Town. Members of the Administrations may
be appointed as required to support the IDP Committee.
4.1.1.3 The Councils will appoint alternates to the Committee to ensure that an IDP
Committee meeting can be called on short notice when regular members are absent and
the IDP Committee is required to consider time-sensitive development proposals and/or
planning applications. The Councils will also consider staggered appointments to the IDP
Committee to ensure member continuity.
4.1.1.5 The IDP Committee will:
i.
Prepare Terms of Reference for the IDP Committee and submit the Terms of
Reference to the Councils for approval.
ii.
Review and prioritize the Implementation Tasks in Appendix 2 of the IDP to make
a recommendation to the Councils. The Councils may direct the IDP Committee to
act as the Steering Committee for any of the tasks.
iii.
Receive and review proposed IDP amendments and make recommendations on
the proposed amendments to the Councils.
iv.
Review the IDP and make recommendations to the Councils for amendments.
v.
Review annexation proposals and make recommendations to the Councils.
vi.
Receive and review proposed statutory plans and statutory plan amendments,
and land use bylaws and land use bylaw amendment that impact the IDP and the
joint planning area, and make recommendations to the Councils.
vii.
Serve as a forum for discussion of matters of mutual interest between the County
and the Town, and
viii.
Subject to agreement and direction from the Councils, initiate or participate in
economic development strategies, and act as an advocate for the future growth
and development of the area.
41
4.1.2 Meetings
4.1.2.1 The IDP Committee must meet at least once a year to
i.
receive a summary report from the Administrations on land use and development
activities in the joint planning area for the previous year
ii.
review the Committee's activities for the previous year, and propose any activities
and initiatives for the coming year
iii.
recommend any amendments to the IDP to the Councils
iv.
determine whether an IDP review is required, and to what extent,
v.
address any other matters required by the Councils as specified in the Terms of
Reference, and
vi.
provide a report that summarizes the results of the meeting, and forwards any
recommendations arising out of the meeting to the Councils.
Otherwise, the IDP Committee will meet as outlined in the Committee's Terms of
Reference.
4.1.3. Referrals
4.1.3.1 Statutory plans and statutory plan amendments and land use bylaw and land use
bylaw amendments that impact the IDP and the joint planning area, and are proposed by
either municipality will be referred to the IDP Committee for review, for a
recommendation to the Councils
4.1.3.2 Proposed road closures in the joint planning area will be referred to the IDP
Committee for review, and for a recommendation to the Councils.
4.1.3.3 Thirty (30) calendar days are deemed to be sufficient time to provide comments
on referrals. If the applicant municipality does not receive written comments on a
referral from the respondent municipality within thirty (30) calendar days, the applicant
municipality may conclude that the respondent municipality has no objections to the
proposal and the applicant municipality may proceed accordingly.
4.1.4 Reviews
4.14.1 At its annual meeting, the IDP Committee will consider whether a review of the IDP
is required and, if so, what the scope of the review should be. The IDP Committee will
may a recommendation to the Councils.
4.1.4.2 Notwithstanding the above, a comprehensive and full review of the IDP is required
five (5) years from the year the IDP was first adopted, and every five years thereafter.
42
4.1.5 Metrics and Monitoring
4.1.5.1 Following the adoption of the IDP, the County and the Town will undertake a land
use inventory in the joint planning area. The purpose of the inventory will be to generate
baseline land supply data in order to measure land consumption in the joint planning area
over time.
4.1.5.2 An annual summary of changes in land supply in the joint planning area will be
presented to the IDP Committee at its yearly meeting. The summary will identify the
gross area of land consumed by subdivision registration in the previous year. At five (5)
year periods, the amounts of land consumed will be aggregated to determine an average
annual growth rate. The annual summary will also identify:
i.
new housing starts
ii.
completed industrial & commercial buildings
iii.
public and institutional developments
iv.
building re-developments or infill developments, and
v.
the densities at which the above have occurred
The above metrics and monitoring framework will inform and guide possible
amendments to the IDP, IDP reviews, and future annexations.
4.2. AMENDMENT
4.2.1 The IDP may be amended from time to time as deemed necessary by the Councils.
4.2.2 The IDP Committee can recommend amendments to the IDP for consideration by
the Councils.
4.2.3 If one municipality proposes an amendment to the IDP that the other municipality
does not agree with, the County and the Town may agree to engage the dispute
resolution procedure to resolve the dispute.
4.3 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
4.3.1 Scope
The MGA requires an IDP to include "a procedure to be used to resolve or attempt to
resolve any conflict between the municipalities that have adopted the plan". For the
purposes of this IDP "any conflict" is defined as any matter related to the IDP and/or
land(s) in the joint planning area that is in dispute between the County and the Town.
43
In this section:
proposal means a proposed statutory plan or statutory plan amendment, or a land use
bylaw or land use bylaw amendment that impacts the IDP and the joint planning area,
and has received first reading at Council,
the applicant municipality is the municipality with jurisdiction over the lands affected by
the proposal,
the respondent municipality is the municipality that has received the proposal on referral
from the applicant municipality, and
statutory plan and land use bylaw have the same meanings as prescribed in the MGA
4.3.2 Principles
Dispute resolution is guided by the following principles:
i.
The dispute resolution process must understand and respect landowner's rights
and/or planning applications where time may be of the essence.
ii.
A right of appeal to the MGB exists for municipalities that a proposed statutory
plan or statutory plan amendment, or land use bylaw and land use bylaw
amendment of another municipality. The right of appeal is subject to two
provisions:
The municipalities must be attempting or have attempted to use mediation to
resolve the matter before filing an appeal with the MGB, and
The respondent municipality must provide written comments to the applicant
municipality before second reading of the bylaw(s). The mediation process
should inform the written comments. Therefore, the applicant municipality
must not give second reading to the bylaw(s) until after the mediation stage,
and after it has received written comments from the respondent municipality.
44
4.3.3 Disputes Regarding Statutory Plans and Statutory Plan Amendments, or Land Use
Bylaws and Land Use Bylaw amendments.
4.3.3.1 Procedure - Administration
On receipt of a proposal from the applicant municipality, administration of the
respondent municipality will evaluate the proposal and provide comments to
the applicant municipality.
If the administration of the respondent municipality objects to the proposal, the
administrations of the County and the Town must meet to discuss the
objections.
If this meeting resolves the objections, the proposal can proceed. If the meeting
does not resolve the objections, the administrations will refer the dispute to the
IDP Committee.
4.3.3.2 Procedure - IDP Committee
The IDP Committee will meet to receive reports on the dispute from the two
administrations. The Committee will consider the dispute and:
Determine, by agreement, to either support or oppose the proposal,
with the agreement to be forwarded to the Councils, or
Determine that no agreement can be reached and report accordingly to
the Councils that an agreement could not be reached.
If both municipalities agree, a facilitator may be employed to support the
Committee's efforts to reach an agreement. Costs associated with the facilitator
will be split equally between the County and the Town.
On receipt of the report from the IDP Committee, each Council will determine a
position on the proposal and will meet to discuss. If the Councils support the
proposal, it may proceed. If the Councils cannot agree on the proposal, it may
be referred to mediation.
4.3.3.3 Procedure - Mediation
Mediation must be based on:
i.
Agreement of the Councils to go to mediation,
ii.
Agreement of the Councils to equally share all costs associated with the
mediation process, including the services of the mediator
45
iii.
Agreement of the Councils on the appointment of a mediator, or the
appointment of a mediator recommended by the Municipal
Collaboration Division of the Municipal Services Branch, Alberta
Municipal Affairs
iv.
Agreement on a schedule for mediation, including meeting dates and
times, and the date on which the mediation process will end
v.
Agreement of the Councils that any members of the IDP Committee or
the Administrations who are not participating directly in the mediation
process may serve as resource persons to the mediation process, and
vi.
Council appointment of an equal number of Councillors from the
Councils to participate in the mediation process
All participants in the mediation process are required to keep the details of the
mediation process confidential
At the conclusion of the mediation process, the mediator will submit a report to
the Councils.
4.3.3.4 Procedure - Council
If the mediation process has resulted in an agreement on the proposal, the two
Councils will approve the agreement by resolution. The applicant municipality
may then proceed to second and third reading of the bylaw(s).
If no agreement has been reached through mediation, or if one or both Councils
do not support the mediator's report, the applicant municipality may, subject to
receiving written comments from the respondent municipality, proceed to give
second and third readings to the bylaw(s).
Following third reading and signing of the bylaw(s), the respondent municipality
may exercise its rights to appeal the matter to the MGB.
4.3.3.5 Procedure - Municipal Government Board (MGB)
Provisions for appealing intermunicipal disputes to the MGB are provided in the
MGA.
4.3.3.6 Procedure - Courts
Provisions for appealing a decision of the MGB to the Court of Appeal are
provided in the MGA.
46
4.3.4 Disputes Regarding Other Matters
4.3.4.1 The County and the Town agree that the dispute resolution procedure
may be used to resolve conflicts over other matters related to the IDP and the
joint planning area (e.g. interpretation of the text and/or mapping in the IDP, a
proposed road closure). In disputes over other matters, the dispute resolution
procedure ends with the two Councils, as there is no opportunity to appeal to
the MGB.
4.3.4.2 The County and the Town recognize and affirm that disputes over
subdivision and development will be resolved through existing statutory appeal
processes.
4.4 REPEAL
4.4.1 If one Council (the initiating Council) introduces a bylaw to repeal its IDP
bylaw, the initiating Council must provide the other Council (the respondent
Council) with written notice of its intent to repeal and must include reasons in
the notice.
4.4.2 Within 60 days of the date of the written notice, the Councils shall meet
to review and discuss the concerns listed in the written notice. The Councils
shall work toward one of the following outcomes: 4.4.2.3 The Councils do not
resolve the concerns, and do not agree to engage the mediation process. The
initiating municipality may proceed with the repeal bylaw.
4.4.2.1 The Councils resolve the concerns, and the initiating Council
provides written notice to the respondent municipality of withdrawal of
its original notice.
4.4.2.2 The Councils do not resolve the concerns but agree to engage
the mediation process to try to resolve the concerns (section 4.3.4.1
applies). If mediation is successful, the initiating Council provides written
notice to the respondent municipality of withdrawal of its original
notice. If mediation is not successful, the initiating municipality may
proceed with the repeal bylaw.
4.4.3 If the initiating municipality repeals its IDP bylaw, the respondent
municipality will also repeal its IDP bylaw, and both municipalities will recognize
and affirm that the IDP no longer exists as a statutory plan.
47
4.4.4 If the IDP bylaws are repealed, both Councils shall amend their MDPs as
necessary to ensure that intermunicipal issues continue to be addressed
pursuant to MGA requirements.
48
APPENDIX 1 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION
June 19-30, 2012
Public Consultation Summary - Phase 1
INTRODUCTION
The following is a summary of the public consultations that took place between June 19th
and 30th, 2012. The summary addresses:
Open House
Comments received from County and Town landowners with respect to the Land
Use Discussion Document and Concept Map,
Other landowner comments,
A summary of landowner participation in the first consultation phase, and
Stakeholders and agencies in the first consultation phase.
OPEN HOUSE
There was a good turnout for the June 21, 2012 Open House at the Vegreville Agricultural
Society, with approximately twenty-five people in attendance (including County and
Town representatives). Discussions with, and comments from landowners focused on the
Land Use Concept Discussion Document and Map that had previously been mailed out to
all landowners, and posted to the project website.
LAND OWNER COMMENTS
One-on-one meetings with landowners took place between June 19th and June 30th, 2012.
At the start of each meeting, the project consultant confirmed that they had received the
mail-out with the land use discussion document and IDP Land Use Concept Map. In most
cases, landowners had received the information. In a few cases, the information had not
been received and the project consultant followed up with either County or Town
Administration to re-send the information.
The Concept Map was used in all conversations with landowners to explain the land use
ideas. It was emphasized that the ideas were just that - ideas - and that no decisions had
been made by the Steering Committee beyond what was shown in the two documents.
The Concept Map was the focus. Idea items such as servicing and urban expansion in the
discussion document were discussed with landowners if raised. Also, if an idea on the
map affected the landowner directly, the project consultant raised this with them.
Comments provided below reflect the ideas shown on the Concept Map. A statement has
been provided in each case to reflect the context provided by the consultant.
49
Vermilion River and floodplain
This idea was presented in the context of what the Town has learned about the Vermilion
River and floodplain in preparing the new MDP.
Landowners did not express concerns about recognizing the Vermilion River and
floodplain.
Most landowners were aware of past floods on the Vermilion River; some
landowners remembered specific flood years.
Town assets
This idea was presented in the context of the Town's interest in bringing existing assets
that it owns and operates (i.e. lagoons, landfill, airport, and cemetery) under its direct
control and jurisdiction.
Landowners did not express concerns. There appeared to be general acceptance
of the idea, and that it would be reasonable for the Town to have direct control
over the assets.
Proposed County West Industrial Area (15-52-14-W4)
This idea was presented in the context of a land use designation already existing in the
County MDP, and the County's proposal to the Town to work together on a potential joint
Area Structure Plan for these lands.
Landowners did not express concerns about the idea of the County and Town
working together in this area, and most landowners had no concerns about
industrial and commercial land use in this location.
There was a concern about the proposed land use at this location because of poor
access and sightlines at the intersection of Highway 16 and Range Road 144.
Highways 16, 16A and 857 interchange / Highway 857 re-alignment
This idea was presented in the context of the long-term (i.e. 50 year) perspective of the
IDP, and the need to acknowledge long-term planning by Alberta Transportation (AT) in
the IDP.
The concerns of landowners directly affected by the proposed Highway 857 re-
alignment ranged from outright opposition to no concern.
Other landowners generally accepted that the proposed interchange and re-
alignment need to be recognized in the IDP.
Landowners also expressed concerns about AT's Highway 16 access management
plan and AT proposals to eventually close Township and Range Road at-grade
accesses to Highway 16. This will restrict landowner access to lands on either side
of Highway 16 and affect their ability to move large farm equipment back and
forth across the highway (see Part Two).
Rainbow Park
This idea was presented in the context of recognizing a Town asset with recreational and
amenity value in the IDP.
50
Landowners did not express any concerns. There appeared to be general
acceptance of the idea to recognize this asset in the IDP.
Medium Term Residential
This was presented as the largest area of land within existing Town boundaries for
medium-term residential growth. Context also included the suggestion that in the long-
term, build-out of these lands might lead to consideration of annexation of County lands
to the west.
Landowners did not express any concerns about this idea. Landowners generally
accepted the idea of "medium term" residential growth in this area, (i.e.
suggested as approximately 25-35 years).
Highway 857 / Township Road 524 - Town "Industrial Park " designation
This idea was presented in the context of the County's interest in working with the Town
to consider an industrial/commercial node on the north side of the joint planning area.
The node could combine existing businesses in the area and the lands designated in the
Town's MDP for a Potential Industrial Park, with access to paved road on both Highway
857 and Range Road 524.
Landowners did not express any concerns about this idea, and generally accepted
the idea in this area.
Agricultural Lands
This idea was presented in the context of identifying and maintaining the productive
agricultural lands in the joint planning area.
Landowners did not express any concerns about this idea.
Joint Planning Area boundaries
This idea was presented in the context of the need to identify a joint planning area for the
IDP, and the reasoning that led the Steering Committee to decide the boundaries shown
on the concept map.
A small number of landowners expressed concerns about, or opposition to the
Joint planning area boundaries; the majority had no concerns.
OTHER COMMENTS
Assessment, annexation, taxes, and zoning
County landowners on lands adjacent to the Town were vocal about living in the
County, wanting to remain in the County, and were firmly opposed to being in the
Town because of the perception that their taxes will increase.
Some landowners interpreted the IDP as an attempt to re-zone lands without
permission, or as a Town "land grab" to increase tax revenues. In response, the
project consultant explained:
51
o Government of Alberta and Municipal Government Board requirements for
annexation;
o The difference between statutory plans, such an Intermunicipal Development
Plan, and Land Use Bylaws in relation to zoning (i.e. only Land Use Bylaws can
legally implement zoning on land. Statutory plans provide direction to Land
Use Bylaws to do so),
o Zoning changes are often initiated by landowners; and
o Assessment and tax changes can occur because landowners improve the value
of their property through development, or obtain a zoning change that
increases land value.
General
Several landowners:
o Had positive comments about the IDP, and were encouraged to see the
County and Town working together on the plan for the benefit of the
Vegreville area,
o Expressed concern about perceived slow growth of the area,
o Identified the potential for growth in the area and cited advantages including
Highway 16, rail service, the regional airport, a regional water supply, sanitary
sewer capacity, and proximity to Edmonton, and
o Said that sustained growth in the area would have to come from private, not
public sector investment.
Alberta Transportation
Several County landowners expressed concern about the Alberta Transportation
Highway 16 Access Management Project that was underway at the same time as
the IDP public consultation program.
Landowners had received correspondence about the Access Management Plan
from Associated Engineering (AE), consultants for Alberta Transportation.
Landowners were confused about the IDP and the Access Management Plan
projects and some landowners thought they were the same project.
The consultant explained the difference between the two projects, and also
attended an Open House on the Access Management Plan in Mundare,
Wednesday, June 27, 2012 to brief an AE representative on the IDP.
LANDOWNER PARTICIPATION
At the start of the first phase of the public consultation program County and Town
Administrations provided a combined list of 83 landowners in the joint planning area. Of
the 83 landowners, 22 were located outside the Vegreville area. A mail-out to these
landowners in advance of June 19, 2012 included the discussion document, the land use
concept map, and the project consultant's cover letter and toll-free number.
The remaining 61 landowners lived in the Vegreville area. The project consultant
52
called each landowner at the start of the consultations to ask for a meeting and, if
necessary, a second call was made at the start of the second week. It was not possible to
contact a number of landowners because:
There were technical difficulties leaving a phone message,
The landowners did not want to meet, or
The consultant's calls were not returned.
The project consultant had direct contact with 30 landowners, and met with the majority
of these landowners in person. The direct contact with 30 of the 61 area landowners
represents a 49% participation rate. Landowners throughout the joint planning area were
represented, with good balance between County and Town landowners.
In July, another letter was sent to the 22 outside landowners to advise that although the
first consultations phase had ended, the project consultant was accessible through the
toll-free number. Two outside landowners subsequently contacted the project consultant
for more information.
STAKEHOLDERS AND AGENCIES
The project consultant contacted the following stakeholders and agencies about the IDP:
Vegreville and District Chamber of Commerce
Vegreville Economic Development Board
Alberta Hub
Alberta Innovates, Technology Futures
Alberta Transportation
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Natural Resources Conservation Board
ATCO Electric
Nova Gas Transmission Ltd.
CN
Trans Canada Yellowhead Highway Association
Vermilion River Watershed Alliance
Ducks Unlimited
Elk Island Public School District
Elk Island Separate School District
Alberta Central East (ACE) Regional Water System
Lakeland REA
Minco Gas
53
May 2 and June 12, 2013
Public Consultation Summary - Phase 2
Phase two public consultations included an Open House on May 2, 2013 at the Vegreville
Agricultural Society. The project consultant was in the Vegreville area on May 1st and 2nd
to attend the Open House and to meet with landowners. Representatives of both
Councils and their Administrations also attended the Open House to meet with
landowners and area residents, and to answer questions about the IDP.
The phase two public consultations concluded with a Joint Public Hearing on June 12,
2013 at the Royal Canadian Legion Hall in Vegreville. A quorum of both Councils was
present to hear submissions from the public on the bylaws. Clarifications were provided
to area residents and landowners who raised questions. The Councils also heard a
detailed submission from a landowner interested in having his lands annexed into the
Town.
54
APPENDIX 2 - IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
The table below shows a list of tasks that need to be carried out to implement the IDP. Following
adoption of the IDP, the Councils will need to establish the IDP Committee pursuant to Policy
4.1.1.1 of the IDP. Section 638 of the MGA requires the statutory plans adopted by the County
and Town to be consistent with each other. When the IDP is adopted, or shortly thereafter, the
municipalities must amend the MDPs, as required, for consistency with the IDP.
The table below lists additional tasks required to implement the IDP. The list is not in priority
order - a decision to proceed with tasks, at any given time, will be made by the Councils on a
recommendation from the IDP Committee. Individual tasks will typically be prepared by the
Administrations, discussed and reviewed by the IDP Committee, and recommended by the
Committee to both Councils for consideration and approval. External expertise may be required
to support the completion of some tasks.
Implementation Task
Policy No.
Vermilion River, Floodplain
Further floodplain study on SE 7-52-14W4, SW-52-14-W4, SE 31-52-14-W4, and SW 31-
52-14-W4.
3.4.3
Industrial/Commercial Joint ASPs
Joint Industrial Commercial ASPs are contemplated in the east, southeast and
northwest parts of the joint planning area. The joint ASP to the east is considered to be
the first priority. The northwest joint ASP is centred on the intersection of Highway 857
and Township Road 524, and includes lands fronting onto Highway 857. The southeast
joint ASP is tied to the future Highway 16 interchange.
3.10.3 &
3.10.4
Annexation
Potential annexation of Town assets.
3.17.1
Vermilion River Watershed Management Plan (WMP)
Support for the implementation of the WMP.
3.5.1
Metrics and Monitoring
Implement the Metrics and Monitoring policy of the IDP
4.1.5
North Saskatchewan Regional Plan (NSRP
With the County of Vermilion River, Town of Vermilion and City of Lloydminster,
coordinate the approach of the five municipalities to the North Saskatchewan Regional
Plan.
3.15
Growth Management Plan
Determine the capacity of the Town's existing land supply for future growth.
3.14
Vermilion River Open Space and Recreation Plan
Study lands adjacent to the Vermilion River for potential public open space and
recreation uses.
3.5.2
Joint Transportation Master Plan
Coordinate proposed ASPs, the future Highway 16 interchange, and the Highway 16
Access Management Plan with Town arterial roads, County Township and Range roads,
and land use in the joint planning area.
3.16.ii
55
APPENDIX 3 - VERMILION RIVER AND FLOODPLAIN
The map entitled MDP Map 4 - Flood Topography (MDP Map 4) is attached to and forms
part of Appendix 3.
MDP Map 4 forms part of the Town's MDP. The map was prepared by the Town's
consulting engineers, DCL Siemens, utilizing Town-owned radar imaging (i.e. LIDAR) data.
The Town ensured to its satisfaction that elevation information on MDP Map 4 was
consistent with the AESRD-designated floodplain map for land within Town boundaries.
The AESRD and Town maps are both based on elevation data. The AESRD map is also
based on a hydrological analysis that was conducted in 1994 when the Vermilion River
and Tributary Flood Hazard Study was completed. The Town's elevation data has not
been subjected to a hydrological analysis.
By agreement between the County and Town, MDP Map 4 is included in an Appendix to
the IDP as a resource for use in further floodplain studies.
56