Bylaw 1240-15: County of Minburn/Village of Mannville IDP
County of Minburn No. 27, Alberta
· adopted 2015-01-01
This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot a198acaf7f00 · verified 2026-06-08 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE /
COUNTY OF MINBURN №27
Intermunicipal
Development Plan
BYLAW
Village 2015-809
County 1240-15, as amended
(
(
BYLAW 2015-809
BEING A BYLAW OF THE VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE
TO ADOPT THE VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE - COUNTY OF MINBURN NO. 27
INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS The Council of the Village of Mannville considers it desirable to adopt the
Village of Mannville - County of Minburn No. 27 lntermunicipal Development Plan in
accordance with Division 4, Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act;
NOW THEREFORE Under the authority of the Municipal Government Act the Council of the
Village of Mannville, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled enacts as follows:
1.
That Bylaw 2015-809, being the Village of Mannville - County of Minburn No. 27
lntermunicipal Development Plan attached herein as 'Schedule A', is hereby
adopted.
2.
Should any provision of Bylaw 2015-809 be determined to be invalid, such
provisions shall be severed and the remaining Bylaw shall be maintained.
3.
That Bylaw 2015-809 becomes effective upon the date of the final passing
thereof.
Read a first time this 16th day of June, 2015.
Public Hearing Held on the 20th day of July, 2015 in the Village of Mannville.
Read a second time this 15th day of September, 2015.
Read a third time and finally passed, this 15th day of September, 2015.
Mayor
BYLAW 1240-15
BEING A BYLAW OF THE COUNTY OF MINBURN NO. 27
TO ADOPT THE VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE - COUNTY OF MINBURN NO. 27
INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS The Council of the County of Minburn No. 27 considers it desirable to adopt the
Village of Mannville - County of Minburn No. 27 lnterrnunicipal Development Plan in
accordance with Division 4, Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act;
NOW THEREFORE Under the authority of the Municipal Government Act, the Council of the
County of Minburn No. 27, in the Province of Alberta, duly assembled enacts as follows:
l.
That Bylaw 1240-15, being the Village of Mannville - County of Minburn No. 27
lntermunicipal Development Plan attached herein as Schedule 'A', be adopted.
2.
Should any provision of Bylaw 1240-15 be determined to be invalid, such
provisions shall be severed and the remaining Bylaw shall be maintained.
3.
That Bylaw l 240-15 becomes effective upon the date of the final passing
thereof.
Read a first time this 151h day of June, 2015.
Public Hearing Held on the 20th day of July, 2015 in the Town of Vegreville.
Read a second time this 201h day of July, 2015.
Read a third time and finally passed, this 201h day of July, 2015.
Reeve
[,/ 7 County Administrator
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This document is consolidated into a single publication for the convenience of users.
The official Bylaw and all amendments thereto are available upon request and should
be consulted in interpreting and applying this Bylaw.
In the case of a dispute, the original Intermunicipal Development Plan Bylaw must be
consulted. Where spelling, punctuation or type face was corrected, the change was
not noted in this document.
For easy reference, the amending Bylaw Numbers are listed below.
BYLAW NO. ADOPTION DATE
CONTEXT
1245-15
12/21/2015
Housekeeping amendments
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
1
Acknowledgements
IDP Steering Committee
Village of Mannville:
Sid Hinton, Mayor
Dave Huppertz, Deputy Mayor/Councillor
James Mason, CAO
County of Minburn:
Eric Anderson, Reeve
Roger Konieczny, Councillor
Richard Wagner, Councillor
David Marynowich, County Manager
Administration
Davin Gegolick, Planning & Development Officer, County of Minburn
Shirley Kercher, Municipal Clerk, County of Minburn
Trudy Shukalak, Administrative Executive, County of Minburn
Public and Stakeholders
Thank you to all members of the public, affected landowners and stakeholders who
provided input into the process, and helped to create a better final product.
Consultant
Vicki Dodge, RPP, Red Willow Planning
Graphics
Marc Brulotte, CET
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Context ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Purpose & Scope ............................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Enabling Legislation ........................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Interpretation ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.0
Public and Agency Input ................................................................................................. 5
3.0
Analysis of Plan Area ......................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Plan Boundary .................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Natural Environment .......................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Wetlands & Surface Water ......................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Soils and Topography .................................................................................................. 9
3.2.3 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.4 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Built Environment .............................................................................................................. 10
3.3.1 Oil and Gas ................................................................................................................. 10
3.3.2 Landfills ........................................................................................................................ 10
3.3.3 Settlement Pattern ..................................................................................................... 11
3.3.4 Utility Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 11
3.3.5 Community Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 13
3.3.6 Canadian National Railway ..................................................................................... 14
3.3.7 Local Roads ................................................................................................................ 14
3.3.8 Highway Network ....................................................................................................... 14
3.4 Economy ........................................................................................................................... 15
3.5 Population & Growth ....................................................................................................... 16
3.5.1 Population Projections ............................................................................................... 16
3.5.2 Residential Growth ..................................................................................................... 17
3.5.3 Non-Residential Growth ............................................................................................ 18
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
3.6 Existing Land Use .............................................................................................................. 18
4.0
Future Land Use Concept .............................................................................................. 20
4.1 Future Residential ............................................................................................................. 20
4.2 Future Industrial/Commercial ........................................................................................ 21
4.3 Agricultural ........................................................................................................................ 21
4.4 Future Parks & Recreation .............................................................................................. 21
4.5 Joint Planning Areas ........................................................................................................ 22
5.0
Land Use and Development Policies ............................................................................ 23
5.1 General Land Use ............................................................................................................ 23
5.2 Residential ......................................................................................................................... 23
5.3 Industrial/Commercial .................................................................................................... 24
5.4 Agriculture ........................................................................................................................ 25
5.5 Parks and Recreation ...................................................................................................... 26
5.6 Joint Planning Areas ........................................................................................................ 26
5.7 Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 27
5.8 Municipal Infrastructure .................................................................................................. 27
5.9 Oil and Gas ....................................................................................................................... 28
5.10 Urban Growth and Sustainability ................................................................................. 29
5.11 Economic Development .............................................................................................. 30
6.0
Plan Implementation ....................................................................................................... 31
6.1 IDP Committee ................................................................................................................. 31
6.2 Statutory Plan Consistency ............................................................................................. 32
6.3 Discretion and Variance ................................................................................................. 32
6.4 Reciprocal Referral Process ........................................................................................... 33
6.5 Statistics & Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 34
6.6 Joint Area Structure Plans ............................................................................................... 34
6.7 Annexation Criteria ......................................................................................................... 35
6.8 Implementation Tasks ...................................................................................................... 37
7.0
Plan Administration .......................................................................................................... 38
7.1 Review, Amendment & Repeal ..................................................................................... 38
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
7.2 Dispute Resolution ........................................................................................................... 39
7.3 Enactment ........................................................................................................................ 42
List of Images
Image 1. Ducks Unlimited Canadian Wetland Inventory Map..................................... 7
Image 2. Highway 16 Access Management Plan Excerpt - Exhibit ES.1....................... 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Population Projections - Village of Mannville .............................................. 15
Table 2. Future Land Use Concept Designations by Area ......................................... 17
Table 3. IDP Implementation Tasks .......................................................................... 32
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Maps (forming part of this bylaw)
Appendix B- General Terms of Reference for the Preparation of a Conceptual Scheme
or Area Structure Plan (not forming part of this bylaw)
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context
The County of Minburn No. 27 (the County) is located in the east-central portion of the
Province of Alberta (see Map 1). According to the 2011 Federal Census, the County
comprises approximately 2,910 km2 of land with a population of 3,278 and with a
median age of 44.1. The population in the County in 2006 was 3,319 and in 2011 it was
3,278.1
The Village of Mannville (the Village) is situated at the junction of Highway 16 and
Highway 881 within the County of Minburn, with a population of 803 in 2011, up from 782
in 20062. It is 82 km west of Lloydminister, and approximately 170 km east of Edmonton
on the Yellowhead Highway 16.
Highway 16 connects the western provinces with the rest of Canada, and offers access
to the west coast port city of Prince Rupert. Highway 881 offers connections to points
north (St. Paul, Lac La Biche, Cold Lake) and south (Hardisty, southern Alberta, US
border).
The Village's favourable location at the junction of two important provincial highways
hints at its potential to thrive as an independent municipality within the County. To
succeed in the long term, the Village needs access to the infrastructure, land base, and
economic development opportunities necessary to be self-sustaining.
The Village and the County agreed that formalizing a strong working relationship
through the preparation of an IDP would be key to the Village's long term success.
1.2 Background
The County of Minburn's Municipal Development Plan, Bylaw 1199-09, as amended,
Policy 10.5, recommends that an intermunicipal development plan be undertaken with
the Village of Mannville. Further, the Village expressed its desire to participate in an
intermunicipal development plan with the County through a subdivision referral
response letter in early 2012.
1 2011 Federal Census, Community Profiles, Statistics Canada, 2012
2 Ibid.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
2
The project was broken into five stages as shown in the illustration above. Work began
in December 2014 with the first IDP Steering Committee meeting. The first
public/stakeholder engagement activities took place in April and the preliminary draft
IDP document was prepared in May 2015. The Village and County adopted the IDP by
bylaw in late summer 2015.
1.3 Purpose & Scope
The purpose of this IDP is to support ongoing cooperation between the Village and the
County, and to support the successful continuation of the Village as an incorporated
municipality.
The IDP:
Supports coordinated economic development activity;
Strengthens and builds upon existing policies and practices related to
intermunicipal planning and decision-making;
Identifies constraints and opportunities to growth within the Village's natural and
built environments, including transportation corridors, oil and gas facilities, land
base, and municipal servicing;
Discusses the potential implications of the proposed Highway 16/Highway 881
interchange and eventual removal of at-grade accesses to Highway 16; and,
Is a statutory planning document pursuant to the Municipal Government Act.
Implementation of the IDP over time should result in the following:
1. Preparation of joint planning documents and statutory plans for IDP areas of
interest to both the Village and the County.
2. Collaborative approach to responding to referrals on oil and gas expansion
activities, and on expansion or planned new confined feeding operations
around the Village.
3. Avoidance of development approvals within the IDP area that are not
complementary with the generalized Future Land Use Concept of the IDP.
4. Preliminary review of the Village's readiness for growth, including assessment of
municipal servicing infrastructure condition and capacity.
Information
Gathering
Analysis
Discussion
and
Confirmation
Plan
Preparation
Plan
Completion
Dec - Feb
March - April
April - May
May - June
June - July
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
3
5. Justified, logical and timely urban expansion that follows an agreed-upon
annexation process.
6. Effective resolution of municipal disputes as they relate to matters of this IDP.
1.4 Enabling Legislation
The Municipal Government Act (MGA), RSA 2000, Chapter M-26, outlines the provisions
and requirements for preparing an IDP. First, both parties must identify which lands
within their respective boundaries are considered 'necessary.' These lands are
contained within the IDP boundary.
Further, 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.
Additionally, 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 related to the administration of the plan.
In addition to the above, per Section 636 of the MGA, affected people, general public
and local school authorities must be advised of, and be given opportunities to make
'suggestions and representations' tothe municipality during the preparation of the IDP.
1.5 Interpretation
Policies are written using 'shall', 'should' or 'may' statements. The interpretations of
'shall', 'should' and 'may' that follow are offered to provide the reader with a greater
understanding of the intent of each policy statement:
'shall' - denotes compliance or adherence to a preferred course of action.
'should' - denotes compliance is desired or advised but may be impractical or
premature because of valid planning principles or unique/extenuating
circumstances.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
4
'may' - denotes discretionary compliance or a choice in applying policy.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
5
2.0
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INPUT
There were 14 affected landowners within the IDP boundary. The Village of Mannville
owns three of the affected parcels. Affected landowners have the right to be informed
of and contribute to the production of an IDP that affects their land. Throughout the
project, landowners, general public and agencies were provided opportunities to
obtain additional information and provide input, including direct access to the
Consultant Project Manager via email or toll-free telephone number.
This section summarizes landowner, public and stakeholder engagement activities,
outcomes and conclusions.
Open Houses
Two open houses were offered to affected landowners, the general public and
stakeholders in relation to this project. The first public open house was held April 28,
2015, and the second was held June 25, 2015. In addition to static displays of maps,
brief presentations were provided, followed by discussion periods.
Affected landowners located within the IDP boundary received direct mail invitations.
Agency stakeholders received email invitations. The general public was notified via
newspaper advertisements in the Vegreville News Advertiser, the Vermilion Voice, and
the Hiway 16 News; website notices and posted bulletins at both municipal offices.
Topics of discussion included the purpose of the IDP project, annexation timing, how the
project may affect landowners, ability to develop land, and how reciprocal referral of
applications could influence decision-making.
One-On-One Interviews
Prior to the open house on April 28, 2015, a number of one-on-one interview sessions
were offered to affected landowners within the IDP boundary. One resident booked an
appointment, and one other dropped by without an appointment during the
scheduled time.
Key topics of conversation during these sessions were similar to those of the open house;
however the question of jurisdiction for permit and subdivision approval was raised and
discussed.
Public Hearing
Per Section 692 of the MGA, a public hearing must be held before second reading of
the IDP bylaw. The Village held its public hearing on July 21, 2015 and the County held
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
6
its public hearing July 20, 2015 during the municipalities' respective regularly scheduled
Council meetings. There were no outstanding issues resulting from the public hearings.
Agencies
The following agencies were notified: Alberta Transportation, Canadian National
Railway, Buffalo Trails School Division, and the Alberta Central East Waterline
Corporation. A representative from the Buffalo Trails School Division attended the first
open house, but did not submit a formal response. None of the other agencies
provided a response or attended the open houses.
Conclusions
Affected landowners appeared to be satisfied with the intended outcomes of the
project, and were generally in support of the IDP, as evidence by lack of objections at
the open houses, one-on-one interviews, and two public hearings.
None of the agencies that were notified submitted any formal comments or objections.
The general public did not appear to participate in the open house events, and no
formal comments were received from the broader community.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
7
3.0
ANALYSIS OF PLAN AREA
This section of the IDP analyses the natural and built environments within the IDP
boundary to determine obvious opportunities and constraints to future development.
These opportunities and constraints in turn influence the generalized Future Land Use
Concept and associated policies in the sections to follow.
A brief analysis of the local economy and population growth trends is also provided,
the findings of which serve to inform the discussion and policies on urban growth and
annexation, found in Sections 5 and 6.
3.1 Plan Boundary
The IDP boundary is shown on Map 2. The plan boundary includes predominately
County lands with three large blocks of Urban Holding land within the Village. This
boundary comprises the equivalent area of roughly seven quarter sections of land, or
456.56 hectares (1128.14 acres).
The elongated shape of the boundary at the south along Highway 16 reflects the
perceived opportunity for non-residential development adjacent to Highways 16 and
881, and the CN Railway line. The boundary is shifted eastward to avoid the presence
of oil and gas infrastrucutre to the west, which is generally considered a constraint to
development.
3.2 Natural Environment
The natural environment refers to the non-human, biophysical aspects of the IDP area.
In this section a general discussion of each topic is presented, with some commentary
on opportunities and constraints relative to future development. Please refer to Map 3.
3.2.1 Wetlands & Surface Water
A number of low-lying land/wet areas are identified on Map 3. Ducks Unlimited has
identified several of these wet areas as marshes. The image on page 8 is an excerpt
from around the Village of Mannville of the Ducks Unlimited Canadian Wetland
Inventory Map. According to the map legend, marshes are identified as bright green.
Shallow waterbodies, not identified as a class of wetland, are shown as light blue. It
appears that human-made water features (dugouts, borrow pits and lagoon cells) are
dark blue.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
8
Should a wetland have provincial significance, approval from the Province may be
required prior to development. The classification and status of wetland areas under the
Province of Alberta Water Act would require confirmation prior to development.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
8
Image 1. Ducks Unlimited Canadian Wetland Inventory Map Excerpt
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
9
3.2.2 Soils and Topography
Soils in the IDP area are Canada Land Inventory Class 2, having good agricultural
capability. The Alberta Soil Information Viewer confirms the IDP area lies within Polygon
16845, characterized by Orthic Black Chernozem soils on medium textured till.3 Polygon
16845 includes poorly drained soils and soils within Rego profiles.4 The landscape is
characterized as an undulating, high relief landform with limiting slope of 4%.5
Contour information is provided on Map 3 at 1.0 meter intervals, derived from the
National Resources Canada Canadian Digital Elevation Model (CDEM). The contour
information reveals the land is relatively flat and generally suitable for development.
Achieving adequate drainage will be an important aspect of successful future urban
development within the IDP area.
3.2.3 Wildlife
The Canada Land Inventory map Land Capability for Wildlife - Ungulates shows land
capability for ungulates in this area is Class 2, or good. Land capability for waterfowl is
low, Class 5, with moderately severe limitations to the production of waterfowl,
according to the Canada Land Inventory map Land Capability for Wildlife - Waterfowl.
A search of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development's Fish and
Wildlife Internet Mapping Tool revealed no reports for the area around Mannville.6 This
suggests there are no known wildlife sensitivities within or immediately adjacent to the
IDP boundary that would impede future development.
3.2.4 Vegetation
The land within the IDP boundary is mostly farmland with a few houses. There are a
number of tree stands and underlying shrubs. However, native grassland is unlikely to
be found in this highly cultivated area. Where feasible, tree stands with habitat or
shelter belt significance should be retained.
Village lands within the IDP area are not expected to contain provincially significant
species of vegetation.
3 Alberta Soil Information Viewer, found at http://www4.agric.gov.ab.ca/agrasidviewer
4 Ibid
5 Ibid
6 AESRD Fish and Wildlife Internet Mapping Tool, found at:
https://maps.srd.alberta.ca/FWIMT_Pub/Viewer
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
10
3.3 Built Environment
The built environment comprises all aspects of the landscape that would not normally
be found in the absence of human settlement or influence. These features can heavily
influence future development potential, and are therefore discussed below.
3.3.1 Oil and Gas
Oil and gas development is a dominant feature of Map 3, particularly to the west and
northwest just outside the IDP boundary. A number of wells, facilities and pipelines are
located within the IDP boundary, predominately along the west and northwestern
edges.
Setbacks to oil and gas wells, facilities and pipelines are determined by the Alberta
Energy Regulator and depend on the volume, pressure and substance of each well,
facility or pipeline. The Subdivision and Development Regulation Part 2, Section 10 also
speaks to setbacks from sour gas facilities for new subdivision and development, while
Section 11 discusses setback requirements from oil and gas wells. Future development
proposals will need to identify required minimum setbacks in the early stages of
planning.
3.3.2 Landfills
There are two inactive, non-operating landfill sites within the boundary of the IDP. The
first is located in the SW 25-50-9-W4M, the second in the NE 25-50-9-W4M. These two
landfill sites have been 'reclaimed', which means covered with earth and compacted.
Their contents remain in situ as the sites have not been excavated or remediated.7
In the early 1980s, the Province of Alberta in partnership with the Federal Government
undertook a project to inventory active and inactive landfills throughout the province.
One hundred and sixty-seven 'priory 1' sites with potential to pose a risk to health, safety
and the environment were catalogued. 8
In 1985, Associated Engineering was retained by the Province of Alberta to perform field
investigations (without field sampling), to give a relative rankings to the 167 'priority 1'
sites, and to make recommendations for monitoring and remedial efforts.
Associated Engineering devised a rating system using points to prioritize the 167 sites.
Once prioritized, each site was classified between Class 1 and Class 5, with Class 1 sites
potentially posing danger of causing irreversible or irreparable damage to public health
7 Telephone communication with Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development,
April 13, 2015.
8 Field Investigations of Land Disposal Sites, Associated Engineering, May 1985.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
11
or environment, and Class 5 sites being properly closed or operated with no evidence
of present or potential adverse impacts.9
The 37.6 hectare (93 acre) landfill at SW 25-50-9-W4M was determined to be a Class 3
site, not posing a significant threat to health, safety or the environment. The 0.81
hectare (2.0 acre) landfill located at NE 25-50-9-W4M was identified as a Class 2 site,
potentially causing a threat to health, safety and the environment. There is no record
of the site being regularly monitored or having been remediated. The potential for risk
posed by this site is unknown.
The Subdivision and Development Regulation requires a 300 meter limiting distance
around a non-operating landfill wherein certain uses are prohibited, including
residential development. Map 3 shows the 300 meter limiting distances around each
non-operating landfill footprint, and that both Village and County residences are
located with the 300 meter limiting distances of the non-operating landfills.
The consequences of this situation need to be fully investigated, understood and
addressed by both municipalities. However, this issue falls outside the scope of this IDP
document, other than to note the issue's potential constraint on future development.
3.3.3 Settlement Pattern
The IDP area is sparsely populated with 11 houses over approximately 456.56 hectares
(1,128.15 acres). The sparsely settled lands offer fewer constraints to future development
generally speaking, and should be protected from premature fragmentation by
subdivision or uses incompatible with the generalized Future Land Use Concept.
3.3.4 Utility Infrastructure
Lands within the jurisdiction of the County are not serviced by municipal utilities. Rather,
they are independently serviced with water wells/cisterns and private sewage disposal
systems. All lands within the Village's jurisdiction are serviced by municipal services
including, water, sanitary sewer, and some form of stormwater management,
predominately overland. Please refer to Map 4.
The IDP does not confirm the condition or the capacity of existing utility infrastructure
within the Village of Mannville. However, understanding infrastructure condition and
capacity will be paramount in future discussions and planning around growth, urban
expansion and capital budgeting.
9 Ibid
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
12
Water
The Village is a shareholder and customer of the Alberta Central East (ACE) Waterline
Corporation. The regional waterline provides treated, potable water to thirteen
municipalities in east central Alberta, and arrived in the Village in the fall of 2013. The
waterline follows the right-of-way of Township Road 504 through the Village and
continues east to the Town of Vermilion.
Currently there are no caps on water consumption, and the Village simply pays for the
volume consumed.
Sanitary Sewer
The Village is serviced by a sanitary sewer system comprising sanitary sewage
collection, two pumping stations, a lagoon (which is located outside the municipal
boundary in the SE 31-50-8-W4M, about half a mile northeast of the Village) and an
outfall line providing discharge of treated effluent into the Vermilion River10.
The system is primarily gravity fed, with the exception of a pump station servicing the
business industrial park in the southeast of the Village, and a second pump station
located adjacent to the lagoon.11
In its 2009 Sewage Lagoon Assessment Report, BAR Engineering assumed a 400
L/day/capita (0.4m3/day/capita) water consumption rate plus 10% additional volume
due to inflow and infiltration when assessing the capacity of the lagoon system. The
report concluded the following:
The anaerobic cells of lagoon have capacity for 1400 people;
The facultative (aerobic) cell only has capacity for 515 people;
The storage cells have capacity for 577 people; and,
The facultative and storage cells present capacity constraints to the lagoon
system.
Based on the findings, the report recommended to expand the facultative cell and to
construct a new storage cell at a cost of $1.5M (2009) to secure capacity for a
population of 1186 projected over 25 years.12 As of 2015, the recommended upgrades
had not been implemented, although sedimentation was removed from the storage
10 Bar Engineering, Sewage Lagoon Assessment Report, May 2009
11 Ibid
12 Ibid
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
13
cells, adding some unknown volume of capacity13. Sanitary sewer capacity could
prove limiting to urban growth without upgrading the existing facilities.
Stormwater Management
Information about the existing stormwater management system was not available. The
existing 2012 Genivar Inc. Stormwater Management Master Plan, does not offer the
level of detail required to inform this discussion. More site-specific analysis may be
required as new development is considered by the Village to identify opportunities and
constraints.
It is therefore assumed that because of the predominately rural standard road network
throughout the Village, drainage is mainly conveyed overland via ditches, and
underground via culverts, as necessary.
There are no stormwater management ponds within the Village's boundary, and
terminal discharge locations for overland flow could not be confirmed. However, it is
reasonable to assume the diches of Highways 16 and 881 receive and convey some
volume of overland runoff from the Village.
Stormwater management will be a key issue when considering future development.
3.3.5 Community Infrastructure
The Village enjoys access to a number of community-based amenities, including a
recreation centre with hall, ice arena and curling rink.14 There is a senior's centre, pre-
school, kindergarten to grade 12 school, museum, library, ball diamonds, food bank
and recycling centre.15
The Village also has access to high speed internet service, local government services,
and volunteer fire protection services.16
In the County on the east side of the Village, north of the CN Railway on Range Road
85, local cemeteries can be found on the east side of the road right-of-way.
13 In person discussion with elected official of the Village of Mannville at April 28, 2015 IDP open
house.
14 Village of Mannville website: www.mannville.com
15 Village of Mannville Infrastructure Blueprints, Bob Hoffos, March 2009, obtained from Village of
Mannville via email April 10, 2015.
16 Village of Mannville website: www.mannville.com
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
14
3.3.6 Canadian National Railway
The Canadian National Railway line runs through the Village following the road
alignment of Township Road 504 in the west and the old Highway 2 alignment to the
east.
Spur line development opportunities may exist for non-residential lands within the
Village and inside the IDP area that are adjacent to the mainline. The combination of
rail and highway access offers good potential for development of non-residential lands
in the IDP boundary.
3.3.7 Local Roads
The IDP area is served by a number of local roads with varying levels of improvement,
from undeveloped rights-of-way to rural graveled and oiled surfaces, to collector roads
with high quality paved surfaces. Their locations and relative classification are shown
on Map 5.
Range Road 91 is a graveled County road. It currently offers at-grade access to
Highway 16 to the west of the Village. Range Road 85 is graveled from Highway 16 to
Township Road 504, then unimproved northward to the cemeteries. It, too, offers at-
grade access to Highway 16.
Township Road 504 is graveled west of the Village and oiled to the east. The old
Highway 2 roadway, locally known as Mannville Road, is a high quality paved road that
offers excellent access to areas identified for future industrial and commercial
development within the IDP.
3.3.8 Highway Network
Highway 881 is a two-lane, undivided highway with a posted speed limit of 100 km/hour
outside of the Village boundary.
Highway 16 has a posted speed limit of 110 km/hour, and is designated as a freeway.
As a consequence, all at-grade accesses to Highway 16 will eventually be removed,
and access to the highway will be controlled at designated interchanges, including the
one proposed at the intersection of Highways 16 and 881. Access to the highway is
pursuant to access management policies of Alberta Transportation.
The Province commissioned engineering consultant CH2MHILL to prepare the Highway
16 Access Management Plan: Highway 36 to Range Road 2-3. Exhibit ES.1 from the
access management plan, excerpted as Image 2 below, identifies the general
location, but not the footprint, of a future interchange at Highways 16 and 881 (grey
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
15
hatched square).17 Further, Exhibit ES.1 indicates which at-grade accesses to Highway
16 near the Village will be closed (red hatch), where new local road construction may
occur (orange), and which existing roadways may be upgraded (yellow).
Image 2. Highway 16 Access Management Plan Excerpt - Exhibit ES.1
As shown in Image 2, access to Highway 16 via Range Roads 91 and 85 will eventually
be removed. It appears that north of Highway 16, impact on access to Highway 881
will be minimal.
Future planning should consider the opportunities and constraints of an interchange
and reduced highway access on development.
3.4 Economy
Local economic activities focus around agriculture, oil and gas, and related services.
According to the 2006 Federal Census, more than half, 64%, of the workforce housed in
the Village travelled outside the municipality to work.
17 CH2MHILL, Highway 16 Access Management Plan: Highway 36 to Range Road 2-3, R-1065/P-
3355, Revised February 2010.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
16
Agriculture and other resource-based industries employed 32% of the labour force in
the Village. Education, retail and health care industries employed another 32% of
working people. Business, finance and other services represented 28% of the labour
force, while construction, manufacturing and wholesale trade rounded out the
remaining labour force in the Village.
In the County, the majority of economic activity takes place within the agricultural
industry. According to the 2011 Census of Agriculture for Alberta, there are 604 farms
operating in the County, accounting for approximately 290,479 hectares (717,764
acres) of land. The primary types of production within the North Saskatchewan land
use region, which includes the County, are grain and oil seed, beef cattle and other
crops.18
3.5 Population & Growth
This section analyzes the population of the Village to estimate growth potential and
land absorption rates. These rates may be helpful when discussing future urban
expansion potential over the next 30 to 50 years.
The following projections are based on numerous assumptions, which may or may not
hold true over time. Additionally, outside market and other influences have not been
taken into account in this analysis. Therefore, these projections should be considered
for discussion purposes only.
3.5.1 Population Projections
This projection exercise serves to put residential expansion into a context that may help
inform a discussion about existing land base and justifying need for urban expansion.
The population of the Village was 803 as of the 2011 Federal Census, with an average
of 2.2 persons per household.19 The rate of growth between 2006 and 2011 was stable
with approximately 0.5% annual growth. Between 2001 and 2006 growth was more
robust at 1.66% annually.
For the purposes of this IDP, the average annual growth rate of approximately 1.1% is
used to project population in Table 1. This annual growth rate is moderate; more
detailed planning analysis should be done to refine projections or offer alternative
scenarios.
18 2011 Census of Agriculture for Alberta, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2014
19 2011 Federal Census, Community Profiles, Statistics Canada, 2012
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
17
Table 1 below summarizes estimated population growth over 35 years starting from
2011, the date of the most recent Federal Census. (Growth rate per annum fluctuates
between 1.11% and 1.12% due to significant figures and rounding.)
Table 1. Population Projections - Village of Mannville
YEAR
POPULATION INCREASE
AVG
RATE
RATE/ANNUM
2001
722
2006
782
60
8.31%
1.66%
2011
803
21
2.69%
0.54%
2016
848
45
5.60%
1.12%
2021
895
47
5.54%
1.11%
2026
945
50
5.59%
1.12%
2031
998
53
5.61%
1.12%
2036
1054
56
5.61%
1.12%
2041
1113
59
5.60%
1.12%
2046
1175
62
5.57%
1.11%
Notes:
2001, 2006, 2011 - Federal Census Data, Statistics Canada
2016 - 2046 - Estimated population based on 1.1% annual
growth
3.5.2 Residential Growth
Over the next 31 years between 2015 and 2046, there is projected to be a population
increase of 336 people. Assuming 2.2 persons per household, an additional 153 houses,
or 153 residential lots, will be needed.
According to the Village's May 2015 lot inventory that lists available lots for sale, there
are 13 residential lots for sale (both Village-owned and privately-owned). Assuming
these lots are all able to be developed with single detached dwellings, the current lot
inventory could house 28 people. A population increase of 28 people will happen
around 2019, according to Table 1 projections.
In other words, the May 2015 lot inventory could meet residential growth demands in
the Village for four more years. This assumes the existing residential lots zoned for duplex
housing where the ball diamonds are currently located do not get turned over for
residential development in the next four years.
To further illustrate residential lot demand projections, consider one of the three Urban
Holding parcels identified for future residential development, located east of the
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
18
existing low density residential area in the northeast corner of the Village (Map 6). This is
most likely the next candidate for residential development in the Village. It is
approximately 13 hectares (32 acres) in area.
Assuming the average single family lot area is 696.8 m2 (7,500 ft2), or 0.17 hectares (50 ft
x 150 ft lot), and assuming 15% of land will be used for roadways, approximately 65 lots
could be developed on this parcel. At 2.2 persons per household, 65 lots would
accommodate an additional 143 people.
Combined, the existing 13 lots and the estimated 65 new lots within the Village's existing
boundary would accommodate 171 more people, a population increase projected to
take place between 2031 and 2036. In other words, if just one of the three Urban
Holding parcels was developed, it could satisfy the anticipated population growth of
the Village for at least the next 15 years.
3.5.3 Non-Residential Growth
Non-residential growth requirements are much more difficult to estimate as they are not
so closely linked to population growth rates. Economic and market forces will have
more influence on demand for non-residential land in and around the Village than
population growth. Economic development policies and activities can also account
for some level of increased interest.
For discussion purposes, very crude estimates of non-residential land absorption rates
can be derived from past lot sale statistics or from development permit issuance dates
relative to the year in which a subdivision was registered at Land Titles. Complete
information was not available during the preparation of this IDP, so there is a gap in the
preliminary analysis of non-residential land absorption.
Statistical data is highly valuable when discussing and assessing urban development
and growth needs. A regularly updated system for tracking non-residential land
transactions and development approvals would greatly benefit the Village.
3.6 Existing Land Use
Map 6 shows existing Village and County land uses within the IDP boundary. County
lands within the IDP boundary are Direct Control, except the NW 25-50-9-W4M, which is
zoned Agricultural. All uses within the DC District are discretionary. Permitted and
discretionary uses in the Agricultural District are detailed in Section 123 of the County's
Land Use Bylaw 1218-12.
All Village lands within the IDP boundary are zoned Urban Holding. Permitted uses
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
19
considered in the Urban Holding district include antenna structures and extensive
agriculture. The list of discretionary uses can be found in Section 7.3 of the Village's
Land Use Bylaw 2006-734, as amended.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
20
4.0
FUTURE LAND USE CONCEPT
Map 7 presents the generalized Future Land Use Concept for the IDP lands, and has
emerged from the opportunities and constraints analysis in Section 3. The generalized
Future Land Use concept outlines future land uses that may develop over time (30 - 50
year horizon) within the IDP boundary. County lands identified in Map 7 will not
necessarily be annexed into the Village. Map 8 identifies the expected locations and
priorities for urban expansion over a 30 - 50 year time horizon.
The proposed designations shown are for planning and discussion purposes, and do not
convey development rights to landowners or developers. Rather, the designations
suggest certain use classes that may be suitable given adjacent existing uses, logical
extension of urban services and infrastructure; and, good planning principles.
The IDP plan area is broken out into the land use designations listed in Table 2, below.
Table 2. Future Land Use Concept Designations by Area
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
AREA (ha)
Future Residential
107.55
Future Industrial/Commercial
209.55
Agricultural
44.25
Future Parks and Recreation
95.21
TOTAL
456.56
4.1 Future Residential
Approximately 107.55 hectares (265.75 acres) of land is identified for Future Residential.
This designation does not specify the density of residential development. Rather it
suggests generally that residential uses are most suitable in the locations identified in
yellow on Map 7. Some residential development in the Future Residential area may
take place in the County, and include rural residential development with independent
services. This type of development is generally discouraged in close proximity to the
urban boundary of the Village to reduce potential impacts on future urban expansion.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
21
4.2 Future Industrial/Commercial
Another 209.55 hectares (517.79 acres) of land is identified for Future
Industrial/Commercial. These lands are identified in purple on Map 7. Where Future
Industrial/Commercial land abuts existing residential uses or existing residentially zoned
lands within the Village, they should be developed with compatible business-industrial
or commercial uses that can serve to buffer existing residential land from future
industrial uses. Such uses may include, but are not limited to, office space, restaurants,
coffee shops, personal services (hair/nails/massage, etc.), mixed use and live/work
developments.
Future Industrial/Commercial land contiguous with and adjacent to the urban
boundary of the Village should be fully serviced in concert with urban expansion. It is
expected that lands located further from the urban boundary will remain unserviced
due to cost constraints. Therefore, uses more likely to be considered rural industrial, or
those requiring limited services, should be directed to lands further away from the urban
boundaries within the Future Industrial/Commercial designation. Uses requiring urban
services should be directed closer to the existing Village boundary.
4.3 Agricultural
The Agricultural designation is applied to 44.25 hectares (109.34 acres) of land, as
shown on Map 7. This designation is applied to the most highly constrained lands in the
IDP area. It is unlikely these lands will be annexed into the Village. The lands are most
suitable to continued agricultural activity, rural residential outside the 300 meter limiting
distances, certain recreation uses, and other uses that would be suitable in an
agricultural district.
4.4 Future Parks & Recreation
There are 95.21 hectares (235.26 acres) of land designated for Future Parks and
Recreation, shown in green on Map 7. These lands represent the 300 meter limiting
distances around the two non-operating landfills within the IDP boundary. Certain uses
are restricted in these areas by the Subdivision and Development Regulation. Therefore
the lands have been identified for potential regional recreation facility development.
However, it may be determined in the future that certain non-residential uses consistent
with the Subdivision and Development Regulation could be suitably located within the
Future Parks and Recreation areas, in particular those lands adjacent to Township Road
504. Changing the designation of land shown in Map 7 would require an amendment
to this IDP.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
22
4.5 Joint Planning Areas
To ensure orderly development of the designated lands, a Joint Planning Area overlay
has been applied as shown in Map 7. The Joint Planning Areas represent significant
opportunities for mutual benefit to the Village and the County, and should therefore be
jointly planned prior to development. Area structure plans will be prepared
collaboratively for these lands in advance of development. Additional agreements
outside the influence of this IDP, regarding such matters as cost/revenue sharing,
taxation, and infrastructure may also be considered by the two municipalities to
complement joint planning.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
23
5.0
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
This section of the IDP provides the policies intended to guide future decision-making
related to land use development, joint planning, urban growth, and economic
development.
5.1 General Land Use
The policies that follow apply generally to land use decision-making on lands within the
IDP boundary.
Policies
5.1.1 The Village and the County shall ensure that future subdivision and development
is in accordance with this IDP. Minor relaxations, pursuant to Section 6.3 of this
IDP, may be considered without an amendment where it can be demonstrated
that the relaxation would maintain the overall intent of the IDP policies.
5.1.2 The Village and the County shall refer all subdivision and bylaw amendment
applications within the IDP boundary to one another as a requirement of a
complete application.
5.1.3 The Village and the County should refer discretionary use development permit
applications within the IDP boundary to one another as a requirement of a
complete application.
5.2 Residential
The Village has a reasonable land base for additional residential development within its
existing boundary. Additionally, there are opportunities for residential infill and
redevelopment within existing mature neighbourhoods.
The Village and the County agree that the logical expansion of residential
development beyond the Village's boundary will be as shown in Maps 7 and 8. Future
Residential lands in the IDP area should not be compromised by rural sprawl (country
estate or multi-lot rural residential subdivisions) or by uses incompatible with residential
development.
Future residential lands should be the subject of area structure plans prior to
development to ensure the logical, orderly and efficient expansion of services, access
to open space and recreational opportunities, and identification of potential
constraints to development, such as oil and gas infrastructure, existing development
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
24
and wetlands.
Policies
5.2.1
The County shall not support redistricting land within the IDP boundary identified
as Future Residential to Country Residential.
5.2.2
The Village and the County shall allow independent servicing of single
detached dwellings on land in the County within the IDP boundary identified for
Future Residential uses where those developments do not abut the Village's
current municipal boundary and would not impeded anticipated urban
expansion.
5.2.3
The County shall require applicants of subdivision proposals on lands identified
for residential urban expansion, i.e.: Map 8, Stage 2, to submit a conceptual
scheme intended to be suitable for potential re-subdivision to urban-sized
residential parcels and logical extension of the urban road network and utility
services, unless an area structure plan for the land is already adopted.
5.2.4
The County shall protect land within the Future Residential designation on Map
7 from premature fragmentation due to subdivision or inappropriately located
rural residential development or incompatible uses. In other words, the County
shall refrain from approving rural residential subdivisions and developments, or
uses incompatible with residential development, adjacent to the Village's
boundary.
5.2.5
The Village and the County shall ensure an area structure plan is prepared prior
to urban-standard multi-lot residential development on land identified for Future
Residential on Map 7.
5.2.6
The Village should monitor the costs and benefits over time of residential infill on
lands where the ball diamonds are currently located, and especially in
advance of or in conjunction with an annexation study in support of residential
urban expansion.
5.3 Industrial/Commercial
Future Industrial/Commercial lands on Map 7 were identified because they lay
between the CN Railway line and Highway 16, offering good visibility from Highway 16,
great access from Mannville Road and potential access from the CN line. Additionally,
the land immediately adjacent to the existing industrial park represents a logical
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
25
extension of the existing development, servicing and road network.
There is limited non-residential land available within the current Village boundary.
Urban expansion may be necessary in the mid-term to acquire lands for non-residential
development. As shown on Map 8, the first stage of urban expansion is anticipated to
be the block of land immediately east of the existing Industrial Park.
Policies
5.3.1 The Village and the County shall require that land designated for Future
Industrial/Commercial development adjacent to the Village boundary is
serviced concurrently with development. In other words, Future
Industrial/Commercial land inside the IDP boundary that is contiguous with
existing similar uses shall be serviced.
5.3.2 The Village and the County may allow for unserviced industrial lots to be
developed inside the IDP boundary on lands designated Future
Industrial/Commercial for uses that do not typically require urban services, and in
areas not contiguous with existing urban development. However, lands
anticipated to be annexed into the Village's boundary shall be fully serviced.
5.3.3 The Village and the County shall ensure an area structure plan is prepared prior
to industrial and/or commercial development of land identified for Future
Industrial/Commercial on Map 7.
5.4 Agriculture
Land identified as Agricultural in Map 7 is highly constrained for residential and certain
other uses due to the limiting distances around the two non-operating landfills. These
constraints suggest that agricultural activity may be the highest and best use of this
land over time.
Existing agricultural activities throughout the IDP area should be allowed to continue, as
long as possible. Confined feeding operations (CFO) and manure storage facilities, on
the other hand, will not be supported within the IDP boundary.
Policies
5.4.1 The Village and the County should allow for existing agricultural activity within the
IDP boundary to continue until such time as the land is either developed for
urban land uses or annexed into the Village, at which time the uses may be
allowed to continue provided they do not present any unreasonable conflicts
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
26
with adjacent existing or developing land uses already within the Village.
5.4.2 The Village shall support the County's Municipal Development Plan policies on
confined feeding operations and manure storage facilities around urban
municipalities.
5.4.4 The Village and the County shall, if called upon by the Natural Resource
Conservation Board (NRCB) to provide response to a proposed application for a
new or expanding Confined Feeding Operation or manure storage facility,
convey to the NRCB that they do not support any new, or the expansion of any
existing, Confined Feeding Operations or manure storage facilities within the IDP
area and on lands identified in the County's MDP Map 3: Confined Feeding
Operations Prohibited Areas, or its successor.
5.5 Parks and Recreation
The areas identified for Future Parks and Recreation on Map 7 correspond to the 300
meter limiting distances around the non-operating landfills. Within these limiting
distances, certain uses are prohibited. As such, it was decided these highly constrained
lands are suited for park and recreational opportunities, within the parameters set out
by the Subdivision and Development Regulation.
Policies
5.5.1 The Village may explore opportunities for collaborative regional park and
recreation facility planning and joint funding with the County for Future Parks and
Recreation lands identified in Map 7.
5.6 Joint Planning Areas
The overlay areas identified on Map 7 for joint planning require careful consideration to
maximize benefits of and minimize risks to both municipalities. Specifically, coordination
of transportation networks, servicing and land use need to be considered through the
preparation of joint area structure plans (ASPs). The joint ASPs will help ensure
development of joint planning areas is consistent with the needs of both municipalities,
and foster proactive responsiveness to market demands.
Policies
5.6.1 The Village and the County may periodically review and amend the Joint
Planning Areas.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
27
5.6.2 The Village and the County may, further to this IDP and where it is deemed
appropriate, necessary and/or desirable, endeavor to enter into agreements
respecting municipal servicing and roads in the IDP area.
5.6.3 The Village and the County shall agree that any agreements for cost and
revenue sharing shall be to benefit future development of lands in the Joint
Planning Areas identified in Map 7.
5.7 Reserves
Development within the IDP boundary may trigger reserve dedication. Environmental,
municipal and/or school reserves may be required through the subdivision process.
Dedication of reserve land should be consistent in both municipalities for land within the
IDP boundary. In each instance where reserve dedication is triggered, the maximum
allowable dedication pursuant to the Municipal Government Act should be taken by
the municipality.
Reserve dedication may also be provided as cash-in-lieu of land. The Village and the
County could establish a jointly-administered 'cash-in-lieu of municipal reserve fund'
into which reserve proceeds could be placed for the purposes of assembling and
developing regional recreational land and facilities within the IDP boundary, specifically
on lands designated for Future Parks and Recreation.
Policies
5.7.1 The Village and the County shall require subdivision applicants to dedicate the
full amount of reserve owing in the forms provided for in the Municipal
Government Act.
5.7.2 The Village and the County shall take environmental reserve in accordance with
Section 664 of the Municipal Government Act.
5.7.3 The Village and the County may consider establishing a jointly-administered
cash-in-lieu of municipal reserve fund into which reserve proceeds would be
placed for the purposes of assembling and developing regional recreational
land and facilities within the IDP boundary.
5.8 Municipal Infrastructure
Municipal infrastructure includes utility infrastructure such as water, sanitary sewer,
storm, and roadways. Land that is contiguous with the Village boundary should be
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
28
serviced in concert with development.
Policies
5.8.1 The Village and the County shall ensure that extension of municipal infrastructure
beyond the Village boundary is only done in a logical, efficient and economical
manner for lands contiguous with the Village boundary and that are proposed to
be annexed into the Village.
5.8.2 The Village shall continue to provide urban servicing to the lands within its
municipal jurisdiction.
5.8.3 The County shall continue to provide rural serving to the lands within its
municipal jurisdiction.
5.8.4 The Village and the County may establish infrastructure cost sharing agreements.
These agreements shall be a fair and equitable recognition of existing investment
in roads and utility infrastructure.
5.8.5 The Village and the County should periodically monitor the progress of the
proposed Highway 16 and Highway 881 interchange, and give particular
consideration to how proposed at-grade access closures could impact
development proposals in those areas.
5.9 Oil and Gas
Existing oil and gas activity to the north and west represents significant constraints to
development. The land use designations of the IDP were strongly influenced by the
presence of these constraints. The rest of the lands within the IDP boundary are
relatively unconstrained by oil and gas infrastructure, especially to the east, and should
remain so if possible.
Policies
5.9.1 The Village and County shall endeavor to protect the lands to the east of the
Village from future constraints due to oil and gas development.
5.9.2. The Village and the County shall strongly recommend that the following
siting/development principles be applied to proposed new oil and gas
developments:
1. Wells should be clustered whenever possible;
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
29
2. Clustered well sites should be located whenever possible next to public
utility lots, stormwater management facilities and future park/recreation
lands;
3. Road access to clustered wells should be combined wherever possible
and access routes utilized should be made to fit existing and identified
future roadways whenever possible;
4. Operating conditions of well/battery sites should align as closely as
possible with the following:
i.
Day-to-day operation and maintenance of sites should be
undertaken during regular business hours;
ii.
Every effort should be made to mitigate associated impacts such
as odours, noise, dust, light/flaring, and vibration; and
iii.
Portable generators should not be used to provide power.
5.9.3 The Village and the County shall request that within the IDP area on lands
identified for Future Residential or Future Industrial/Commercial, oil companies
remove well casings and pipe from abandoned wells to a minimum depth of six
meters (20 feet).
5.10 Urban Growth and Sustainability
The Village has sufficient land to accommodate residential growth in the near to mid-
terms assuming a steady growth rate of approximately 1% per year (see discussion in
Section 3.5).
Urban expansion is costly. Infill and redevelopment takes advantage of existing services
and keeps infrastructure expenses stable. In the short term, infill and redevelopment
may be a more sustainable approach to residential growth in a community with limited
resources.
Non-residential land in the Village is less abundant. The Village may need to expand its
industrial/commercial land base through annexation in the mid-term should market
demand in the area increase.
The following policies serve to guide growth and annexation to ensure urban expansion
endeavors to offer a net benefit to the Village, and does not compromise municipal
financial sustainability.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
30
Policies
5.10.1 The County shall acknowledge that the Village may need to annex land from
the County in the future to remain an economically viable, independent
municipality.
5.10.2 The Village and the County shall work collaboratively on annexation proposals
prior to initiating an annexation pursuant to the Municipal Government Act.
5.10.3 The Village shall demonstrate need for additional land base and capability to
provide urban municipal servicing to new lands as part of the annexation
negotiation and application processes.
5.10.4 The Village shall ensure that land subject to annexation is able to be fully
serviced by logical, efficient and economical extension of existing urban
municipal services and road network.
5.10.5 The County shall protect lands identified for annexation from interim
development and land uses that could negatively impact logical, orderly, and
economical urban expansion.
5.10.6 The Village and the County should support each other to jointly apply for
provincial and other funding to implement mutually beneficial infrastructure
improvements, and to prepare important engineering studies, such as, but not
limited to, municipal utility infrastructure condition and capacity, stormwater
management, wetland assessment and classification, and preliminary
geotechnical assessment.
5.11 Economic Development
Economic development activities should focus on ensuring that an adequate land
base is available for subdivision and development, and is properly planned for through
the preparation of joint area structure plans, as described by this IDP.
Policies
5.11.1 The Village and the County should work together to provide an inventory of
suitable lands to attract a broad range of business and appropriate non-
residential uses.
5.11.2 The Village and the County shall prepare joint area structure plans in the Joint
Planning Areas identified in Map 7, and consistent with Section 6.6 of this IDP.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
31
6.0
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
This section discusses how to implement this IDP. It is important to follow through on the
implementation tasks of the IDP to solidify the direction set by bylaw through future
decision-making, especially as it relates to matters of mutual interest.
A number of discrete implementation tasks are tabulated at the end of this section to
give some direction regarding the next steps to take after adoption of the IDP Bylaws
by the Councils.
6.1 IDP Committee
The IDP Committee plays a pivotal role in the implementation, review, monitoring and
amendment of the IDP Bylaws.
Typical duties of an IDP Committee include:
1. Prepare a Terms of Reference for the IDP Committee and submit the Terms of
Reference to the Councils for approval;
2. Review and prioritize implementation tasks of the IDP to make recommendations
to the Councils (including more specific timing of mid- to long-term tasks);
3. Clarify the intent and interpretation of the IDP;
4. Serve as a forum for discussion of matters of mutual interest between the Village
and the County;
5. As requested by the Councils, initiate or participate in economic development
strategies, and act as an advocate for the future growth and development of
the IDP;
6. Review and provide comments on applications to amend the IDP;
7. Serve as the Steering Committee for subsequent joint ASPs and other joint
planning initiatives at the direction of the Councils; and,
8. Undertake such other matters as are referred to it by either Council.
Policies
6.1.1 The Village and the County shall create an IDP Committee upon adoption of the
IDP Bylaws.
6.1.2 The IDP Committee shall prepare a Terms of Reference to govern its activities
and set minimum requirements for meetings, IDP reviews, and any other matters
it deems are related to the implementation of the IDP Bylaws.
6.1.3. The IDP Committee shall meet at least once per year, preferably at the
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
32
beginning or the end, to:
1. Receive a summary report from Administrations on land use and
development activities in the IDP area for the previous year;
2. Review the Committee's activities for the previous year, and propose any
activities and initiatives for the coming year;
3. Recommend any amendments to the IDP to the Councils;
4. Determine whether an IDP review is required, and to what extent;
5. Address any other matters required by the Councils as specified in the
Terms of Reference; and,
6. 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 Terms of Reference.
6.2 Statutory Plan Consistency
Per Section 638 of the MGA, all statutory plans adopted by a municipality must be
consistent with each other. It is common that municipal development plans and area
structure plans get amended to ensure they are consistent with a newly adopted IDP.
Although it is not a requirement of the MGA, land use bylaws, if deemed necessary,
can also be amended to be consistent with this IDP.
Policies
6.2.1 The Village and the County should, as necessary, amend their respective
municipal development plan and area structure plan bylaws to be consistent
with this IDP, per Section 638 of the Municipal Government Act.
6.2.2 The Village and the County may amend their Land Use Bylaws to be consistent
with this IDP.
6.3 Discretion and Variance
From time to time the policies or principles of this IDP may not be appropriate in a
specific situation. In these cases, careful use of discretion and variance may be used to
address the unique circumstances of a situation while still upholding the intent and
integrity of the IDP.
Policies
6.3.1. The Village and the County, in exercising discretion and/or variance with respect
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
33
to any matter or decision relative to this IDP, shall be guided by the following
principles when considering a decision:
1. The rationale for deviating from a provision or requirement of this IDP, and
the implications thereof, must be clearly understood by those exercising the
discretion or variance;
2. The exercise of discretion or variance in deciding an application must be
both reasonable and defensible within the letter and spirit of this IDP, as well
as generally accepted good planning principles;
3. Discretion and variance shall only be considered if it can be demonstrated
that the discretion or variance being considered will, at a minimum, not
jeopardize the IDP's goals, objectives or policies, and will, at best, better
serve them; and,
4. Any discretion or variance exercised shall be fully documented so that the
reasons and rationale for the discretion or variance are accurately recorded
and clearly understood.
6.4 Reciprocal Referral Process
In certain circumstances, the Village and the County will refer subdivision and
development applications and bylaw amendments that impact the IDP area to one
another for comment prior to making a decision. The following policies outline under
which circumstances the municipalities are obligated to send referrals to one another.
Policies
6.4.1 The Village and the County shall commence reciprocal referral practices for all
subdivision applications. Referral comments shall form part of a complete
application, as defined by the Subdivision and Development Regulation.
6.4.2 The Village and the County shall commence reciprocal referral practices for all
bylaw amendment applications within the IDP boundary that may impact the
implementation of the policies or principles of this IDP.
6.4.3 The Village and the County should commence reciprocal referral practices for
development applications, in particular for discretionary use applications, within
the IDP boundary that may impact the implementation of the policies or
principles of this IDP.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
34
6.5 Statistics & Monitoring
Justification for annexation will require detailed analysis of need. Therefore, certain
land use statistics should be compiled and monitored regularly. Further, regular review
of this IDP by the IDP Committee would benefit from analysis of land use and economic
development activities.
Policies
6.5.1 The Village in collaboration with the County should compile and analyze on an
annual basis key land use data, such as housing starts, in-fill or redevelopment
projects, non-residential developments, subdivision approvals with number/type
of lots, and population growth (via municipal census, federal census or assumed
rate of growth based on projections). These data sets should be provided to the
IDP Committee in advance of its annual meeting to assist in its review of the IDP
Bylaws.
6.6 Joint Area Structure Plans
The preparation of joint area structure plans should take place in advance of need so
they may be done thoughtfully and with regard to good planning principles. The ASPs
should contain sufficient detail on servicing and transportation networks to support
orderly and efficient development. Supplemental engineering studies may be required
to prepare sufficiently detailed ASPs.
Policies
6.6.1. The Village and the County shall prepare joint area structure plans (ASPs) for the
lands identified for joint planning in Map 7 to ensure development readiness,
certainty of land use and consistency in development standards. Priority
sequence for developing the joint ASPs aligns with the proposed urban
expansion staging shown in Map 8, as listed below:
1. Part of NW 19-50-8-W4M (Industrial/Commercial),
2. Part of SW 30-50-8-W4M (Residential), and
3. Part of NE 24-50-9-W4M (Industrial/Commercial).
Sequence, timing and land base of subsequent joint planning activities, including
other joint ASPs not identified here, will be governed by need, to be determined
in coordination with the IDP Committee, the Village and the County. Reordering
of these priorities does not constitute an amendment to this IDP.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
35
6.6.2 The Village and the County shall require that area structure plans (joint or
otherwise) for lands within the IDP boundary are prepared by a Registered
Professional Planner (RPP), comply with this IDP; and, are undertaken pursuant to
Section 634 of the Municipal Government Act and the General Terms of
Reference for the Preparation of a Conceptual Scheme or an Area Structure
Plan, found in Appendix B of this IDP.
6.7 Annexation Criteria
This section provides guidance on future annexation activities, and policies to ensure
that annexation is undertaken in a justifiable, timely, logical, sustainable, mutually
agreeable, and generally acceptable manner.
Policies
6.7.1 The County shall recognize that there may be a periodic need for urban
expansion of the Village of Mannville.
6.7.2 The Village and the County shall undertake annexation exercises using a positive,
orderly, timely and agreed upon process where there is a clear and present
need.
6.7.3 The Village and the County shall not support annexation of lands south of
Highway 16 for the life of the IDP.
6.7.4 The Village and the County shall protect lands for annexation from subdivision
and land use developments that might unduly interfere with and/or create
conflict with future urban expansion.
6.7.5 The Village and the County should prefer to avoid large and complex
annexations in favour of annexations involving smaller amounts of land occurring
on an as-needed basis.
6.7.6 The Village and the County shall follow the annexation process as outlined in the
Municipal Government Act, or its successor, current at the time an annexation
application is made.
6.7.7 The Village may enter into an agreement to compensate the County for the
existing municipal portion of property taxes on a descending scale in the event
of annexation where land is not currently serviced by the Village.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
36
6.7.8 The Village and County shall ensure that any agreement they enter into
regarding providing services to land in the County, that the agreement shall also
address annexation.
6.7.9. The Village and the County shall consider the following in determining the timing,
size and location of an annexation area:
1. Justifiable and mutually agreeable current and future growth rates - growth
rates are defined as the rate at which land is consumed for residential,
commercial and industrial purposes normally expressed in acres per year
over a minimum 20-30 year time horizon possibly up to a 50 year+ time
horizon.
2. Availability and cost of servicing - the physical and economic ability to
extend Village services to specific areas within the County should be logical,
reasonable and cost effective.
3. Adequacy of transportation systems to accommodate new development -
the annexation area should be either serviced with road network or be able
to be serviced with a logical extension of existing road networks.
4. Land ownership patterns - the annexation should follow legal boundaries or
natural features to avoid creating a fragmented pattern of land ownership.
5. Local support - annexation should, as much as possible, have the support of
the landowners involved.
6. Consistent with local plans - the annexation should be consistent with the
policies of this IDP, the respective municipal development plans and any
area structure plan or other study. Planning for annexations should consider a
minimum 20-30 year time horizon possibly up to a 50 year+ time horizon for
land needs.
7. Logical extension - the annexation should be a logical expansion of the
Village and may include developed areas.
8. Agricultural mill rates - the annexation should not dramatically alter the taxes
collected from agricultural lands in the annexation area simply because of
annexation. The two municipalities may look at harmonizing their agricultural
mill rates, as appropriate.
9. Any other matters that both Councils consider necessary.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
37
6.8 Implementation Tasks
The following Table 3 lists proposed implementation tasks for action following the
adoption of the IDP Bylaws. Tasks may be reviewed and amended by the IDP
Committee on an annual basis. Minor adjustments to Table 3 would not require an IDP
amendment.
Table 3. IDP Implementation Tasks
IDP SECTION TASK
TIMEFRAME RESPONSIBILITY
3.6
Assess implications of 300 m limiting
distance and existing residences
immediate Village &
County
3.6
Assess urban utility infrastructure
capacity and condition
ongoing
Village
3.6
Monitor Highways 16/881 interchange
timing
long term
joint
3.8, 5.10,
6.5, 6.7
Compile and analyze key statistics to
support land absorption analysis
ongoing
Village
5.6, 6.6
Prepare joint ASPs
mid to
long terms
joint
5.7
Consider cash-in-lieu fund
mid term
joint
6.1
Establish IDP Committee and Terms of
Reference
immediate joint
6.2
Amend stat documents to be
consistent
immediate Village
6.3
Reciprocal referral process
immediate joint
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
38
7.0
PLAN ADMINISTRATION
This section outlines how the IDP Bylaws should be administered by each municipality.
7.1 Review, Amendment & Repeal
The IDP requires regular review to ensure it aligns with the evolving needs of the Village
and the County. If through a review process it is found that particular policies or
principles are no longer required or should be augmented, or that new policies and
principles are needed, then the Bylaws can be amended as provided for in the
Municipal Government Act.
In rare cases, repeal may be requested by one or both parties. Every effort should be
made to resolve the issue(s) that led to the repeal request first, referencing Section 7.2
below as necessary. If after every effort to resolve the conflict(s) has been exhausted,
the parties may agree to repeal the IDP Bylaws.
Policies
Review & Amendment
7.1.1 The IDP Committee and the Councils shall review the IDP Bylaws regularly, with a
formal, major review being done every five years.
7.1.2 The IDP Committee shall review, assess and bring requests for IDP amendments to
the Councils as they arise.
7.1.3 The Councils may amend the IDP from time to time, and shall do so in
accordance with the Municipal Government Act.
Repeal
7.1.4 The municipality initiating the repeal shall provide written notice to the other
municipality of its intent to repeal the IDP Bylaw, including the reasons why.
7.1.5 The two Councils shall meet within 60 days of receipt of the notice to repeal to
discuss the reasons for the repeal, and attempt to resolve the issues to mutual
satisfaction. Use of a mediator may be required if the two Councils cannot find
consensus on the issues.
7.1.6 The initiating municipality may withdraw its notice of repeal In the event that
consensus on the issue resolution is reached, with or without mediation.
7.1.7 The Village and the County Councils shall agree to each pass a bylaw to repeal
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
39
the IDP Bylaws in the event that consensus cannot be reached despite formal
mediation.
7.1.8 The Village and the County shall amend their respective Municipal Development
Plans, as necessary, to ensure that intermunicipal issues continue to be
adequately addressed pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal
Government Act in the event that the IDP Bylaws are repealed.
7.2 Dispute Resolution
A principle of dispute/conflict resolution is consideration of the rights of landowners who
may be the object of an intermunicipal dispute. Thus, throughout the various processes
and procedures outlined below, it is important that both municipalities, as well as all
parties engaged to resolve intermunicipal disputes, are mindful of and respect the
rights of the private interests involved.
A dispute is hereby defined as any statutory plan or land use bylaw or amendment
thereto which is given first reading by a Council, which the other Council deems to be
'inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of this IDP'. Disputes can only be
initiated by the Council of either the Village or County. A dispute is limited to decisions
on the above because it is agreed that decisions on subdivisions and development
permits will be made in accordance with existing, approved statutory plans and land
use bylaws that are consistent with this IDP. Further, all appeals of subdivisions and
development permits will be made by the respective municipalities or the Municipal
Government Board where appropriate, but with review by the IDP Committee.
Disputes may be addressed and may be resolved through any of the following
mechanisms either singularly or in combination with each other:
1. Administrative Review
2. IDP Committee
3. Municipal Councils
4. Mediation
5. Municipal Government Board Appeal Process
6. Courts
In the event of a dispute, the municipality being disputed will not grant approval (i.e.:
consider second and third readings) to the statutory plan, land use bylaw or
amendment thereto, until the dispute is past the mediation stage. The time limitations
and legislative requirements as may be specified from time to time in the Municipal
Government Act will be respected in relation to the administration of this dispute
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
40
resolution procedure.
Policies
7.2.1 The Village and the County shall follow the dispute resolution process outlined
below:
Administrative Review
1. The applicant municipality (ie. the approving authority) shall provide complete
information concerning the disputed matter. The responding municipality (ie. the
neighbouring municipality) shall undertake an evaluation of the matter and
provide comments to the administration of the applicant municipality.
2. The two Administrations shall meet to discuss the issue and attempt to resolve the
matter.
3. If the Administrations resolve the issue, the responding municipality will formally
notify the applicant municipality and withdraw the dispute notification and the
applicant municipality will take the appropriate actions to address the disputed
matter.
4. In the event that the dispute cannot be resolved at the administrative level,
either Administration can refer the matter to the IDP Committee.
IDP Committee
1. Upon the referral of a dispute, the IDP Committee will schedule a meeting and
the Administrations of the County and Village will present their positions on the
matter to the IDP Committee.
2. After considering the dispute, the IDP Committee may, in the event that a
proposal in relation to the dispute is referred to it, schedule an IDP Committee
meeting and the Administrations of both municipalities will present their positions
on the proposal.
3. After consideration of a proposal, the IDP Committee may:
a. provide suggestions back to both Administrations with revisions to the
proposal making it more acceptable to both municipalities;
b. if possible, agree on a consensus position of the IDP Committee in support
of or in opposition to the proposal, to be presented to both Councils; or
c. conclude that no initial agreement can be reached and that a consensus
position of the IDP Committee will not be presented to both Councils.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
41
4. If agreed to by both municipalities, a facilitator may be employed to help the
IDP Committee work toward a consensus position.
5. If a proposal cannot be satisfactorily processed following a IDP Committee
review, then that proposal will be referred to both Councils.
Municipal Councils
1. After receiving the recommendations of the IDP Committee with respect to a
particular proposal, each Council will establish a position on the proposal.
2. If both municipal Councils support a proposal, then the approval and/or bylaw
amendment processes can be completed. If neither Council supports the
proposal, then no further return will be required.
3. If both Councils cannot agree on a proposal, then the matter may be referred to
a mediation process.
4. In the event that the two municipalities resort to mediation, the applicant
municipality will not give approval in the form of second and third readings to
appropriate bylaws until mediation has been pursued and concluded.
Mediation
1. The following will be required before a mediation process can proceed:
a. agreement by both Councils that mediation is necessary;
b. appointment by both Councils of an equal number of elected officials to
participate in a mediation process;
c. engagement, at equal cost to both municipalities, of an impartial and
independent mediator agreed to by both municipalities; and
d. approval by both municipalities of a mediation schedule, including the
time and location of meetings and a deadline for the completion of the
mediation process.
2. If agreed to by both municipalities, any members of the IDP Committee or
administrative staff from either municipality who are not participating directly in
the mediation process may act as information resources either inside or outside
the mediation room.
Village of Mannville-County of Minburn No. 27
Intermunicipal Development Plan
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
42
3. All participants in the mediation process will be required to keep details of the
mediation confidential until the conclusion of the mediation.
4. At the conclusion of the mediation, the mediator will submit a mediator's report
to both Councils.
5. If a mediated agreement is reached, then that agreement will be referred to
both Councils for action. Both Councils will also consider the mediator's report
and the respective positions of the municipal Administrations with respect to the
mediated agreement. Any mediated agreement will not be binding on either
municipality until formally approved by both Councils.
6. If no mediated agreement can be reached or if both Councils do not approve a
mediated agreement, then the appeal process may be initiated.
MGB Appeal Process
1. In the event that the mediation process fails, the initiating municipality may pass
a bylaw to implement the proposal (e.g. a bylaw amending an area structure
plan).
2. If the applicant municipality passes a bylaw to implement the proposal, then the
responding municipality may appeal that action to the Municipal Government
Board under the provisions of Section 690 of the Municipal Government Act.
3. The responding municipality must file a notice of appeal with the Municipal
Government Board and give a copy of the notice of appeal to the applicant
municipality within thirty (30) days of the passage of the disputed bylaw.
Courts
1. The process for review of a municipal dispute is defined by Provincial Legislation.
7.3 Enactment
The provisions of this IDP come into force once the Village and the County give third
reading the respective adopting bylaws in accordance with Section 692 of the
Municipal Government Act.
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
Appendix A - Maps
(forming part of this bylaw)
Map 1 - Regional Context
Map 2 - IDP Boundary
Map 3 - Opportunities & Constrains
Map 4 - Servicing and Infrastructure
Map 5 - Transportation
Map 6 - Existing Land Use
Map 7 - Future Land Use & Joint Planning Areas
Map 8 - Urban Expansion Staging
631
619
RGE 91
RGE 93
RGE 94
RGE 95
RGE 100
RGE 101
RGE 102
RGE 103
RGE 104
RGE 105
RGE 110
RGE 111
RGE 112
RGE 114
RGE 115
RGE 120
RGE 121
RGE 122
RGE 123
RGE 124
RGE 125
RGE 130
RGE 132
RGE 133
RGE 134
RGE 135
RGE 140
RGE 141
RGE 142
RGE 143
RGE 144
RGE 145
RGE 150
RGE 151
RGE 152
RGE 153
RGE 154
RGE 155
RGE 160
RGE 161
RGE 162
TWP 502
TWP 500
TWP 490
TWP 484
TWP 482
TWP 480
TWP 492
TWP 494
TWP 510
TWP 512
TWP 514
TWP 520
TWP 522
TWP 524
TWP 530
TWP 532
TWP 534
TWP 540
TWP 542
857
870
881
to
Edmonton
626
881
Vegreville
MANNVILLE
Minburn
Innisfree
Ranfurly
Lavoy
COUNTY OF TWO HILLS
BEAVER COUNTY
M.D. OF WAINWRIGHT
COUNTY OF VERMILION RIVER
LAMONT COUNTY
COUNTY OF
MINBURN
to
Lloydminster
Legend
County of Minburn
Plan Area
Trans Canada Highway 16
Provincial Highway
Government Road Allowance
Alberta Central East (ACE) Regional
Water Pipeline Alignment
Map 1
Regional Context
0
3
6 km
1:300,000
870
COUNTY OF MINBURN /
VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE
INTERMUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
30
50-8-4
19
50-8-4
20
50-8-4
29
50-8-4
32
50-8-4
31
50-8-4
36
50-9-4
25
50-9-4
24
50-9-4
26
50-9-4
23
50-9-4
35
50-9-4
TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 16
HIGHWAY 881
TWP RD 504
MANNVILLE ROAD
MANNVILLE ROAD
TWP RD 504
RGE RD 91
RGE RD 85
RGE RD 84
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
Legend
IDP Boundary
Village of Mannville Boundary
COUNTY OF MINBURN /
VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE
INTERMUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Map 2
IDP Boundary
0
200
400 m
1:20,000
Airphoto: 2013
580
580.0
580
58
585
585
585.0
590
5
590
590.0
595
5
595
595.0
600
600.0
600
60
605
6
605
605.0
605.0
605.0
610
6
610
610.0
610.0
61
0
615
615
615.0
615.0
615
620
620
620
620.0
620.0
620
620
625.0
625
625.0
625.0
625
625
625
625
630.0
630
630
630
630.0
630
630
635
635
635
635.0
635.0
635.0
635.0
6
635
640
640
0
645
645
645.0
645.0
650
650
30
50-8-4
19
50-8-4
20
50-8-4
29
50-8-4
32
50-8-4
31
50-8-4
36
50-9-4
25
50-9-4
24
50-9-4
26
50-9-4
23
50-9-4
35
50-9-4
TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 16
HIGHWAY 881
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
TWP RD 504
MANNVILLE ROAD
MANNVILLE ROAD
TWP RD 504
RGE RD 91
RGE RD 85
RGE RD 84
300 m LIMITING DISTANCE
LANDFILL
LAND
FILL
LAGOON
CEMETERY
Legend
IDP Boundary
Village of Mannville Boundary
300 m Landfill Limiting Distance
Residences
Low-Lying Land/Wet Area
Dugout
Oil & Gas Pipeline
Oil & Gas Well
Oil & Gas Facility
COUNTY OF MINBURN /
VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE
INTERMUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Airphoto: 2013
1.0 m contours derived from Natural Resources
Canada - Canadian Digital Elevation Model (CDEM).
Map 3
Opportunities & Constraints
0
200
400 m
1:20,000
30
50-8-4
19
50-8-4
20
50-8-4
29
50-8-4
32
50-8-4
31
50-8-4
36
50-9-4
25
50-9-4
24
50-9-4
TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 16
HIGHWAY 881
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
TWP RD 504
MANNVILLE ROAD
MANNVILLE ROAD
TWP RD 504
RGE RD 91
RGE RD 85
RGE RD 84
LAGOON
Legend
IDP Boundary
Village of Mannville Boundary
Oil & Gas Pipeline
Oil & Gas Well
Well Setback
Oil & Gas Facility
Water Well
Regional Water Pipeline
Watermain
Sanitary Sewer
Force Main
Right-of-Way
COUNTY OF MINBURN /
VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE
INTERMUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Map 4
Servicing & Infrastructure
0
150
300 m
1:15,000
30
50-8-4
19
50-8-4
20
50-8-4
29
50-8-4
32
50-8-4
31
50-8-4
36
50-9-4
25
50-9-4
24
50-9-4
26
50-9-4
23
50-9-4
35
50-9-4
TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 16
HIGHWAY 881
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
TWP RD 504
MANNVILLE ROAD
MANNVILLE ROAD
TWP RD 504
RGE RD 91
RGE RD 85
RGE RD 84
Legend
IDP Boundary
Village of Mannville Boundary
Arterial Roadway
Collector/Rural Roadway
Local Road
Canadian National Railway
Major Intersection
Primary Intersection
CNR Crossing
COUNTY OF MINBURN /
VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE
INTERMUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Map 5
Transportation
0
200
400 m
1:20,000
30
50-8-4
19
50-8-4
20
50-8-4
29
50-8-4
32
50-8-4
31
50-8-4
36
50-9-4
25
50-9-4
24
50-9-4
26
50-9-4
23
50-9-4
35
50-9-4
TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 16
HIGHWAY 881
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
TWP RD 504
MANNVILLE ROAD
MANNVILLE ROAD
TWP RD 504
RGE RD 91
RGE RD 85
RGE RD 84
Legend
COUNTY OF MINBURN /
VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE
INTERMUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Map 6
Existing Land Use
0
200
400 m
1:20,000
IDP Boundary
Village of Mannville Boundary
C1
Central Business District
Commercial
C2
Regional Commercial
IB1
Industrial Business Park
P1
Public Service
R1
Residential Low Density
Single Dwelling
R2
Residential Low Density Two
Dwelling
RMH Residential Mobile Home
Park
UH
Urban Holding
DC
Direct Control (Village)
DC
Direct Control (County)
A
Agricultural
30
50-8-4
19
50-8-4
20
50-8-4
29
50-8-4
32
50-8-4
31
50-8-4
36
50-9-4
25
50-9-4
24
50-9-4
26
50-9-4
23
50-9-4
35
50-9-4
TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 16
HIGHWAY 881
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
TWP RD 504
MANNVILLE ROAD
MANNVILLE ROAD
TWP RD 504
RGE RD 91
RGE RD 85
RGE RD 84
Legend
IDP Boundary
Village of Mannville Boundary
Agricultural
Future Residential
Future Industrial/Commercial
Future Parks & Recreation
Joint Planning Areas
COUNTY OF MINBURN /
VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE
INTERMUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Map 7
Future Land Use &
Joint Planning Areas
0
200
400 m
1:20,000
30
50-8-4
19
50-8-4
20
50-8-4
29
50-8-4
32
50-8-4
31
50-8-4
36
50-9-4
25
50-9-4
24
50-9-4
26
50-9-4
23
50-9-4
35
50-9-4
TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 16
HIGHWAY 881
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
TWP RD 504
MANNVILLE ROAD
MANNVILLE ROAD
TWP RD 504
RGE RD 91
RGE RD 85
RGE RD 84
1
2
3
Legend
IDP Boundary
Village of Mannville Boundary
Expansion Staging
COUNTY OF MINBURN /
VILLAGE OF MANNVILLE
INTERMUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Map 8
Urban Expansion Staging
Planning Horizon 30 -- 50 Years
0
200
400 m
1:20,000
1
Village Bylaw 2015-809 / County Bylaw 1240-15
Appendix B - General Terms of Reference for the
Preparation of a Conceptual Scheme or Area Structure
Plan
(not forming part of this bylaw)
GENERIC TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A
CONCEPTUAL SCHEME OR AN AREA STRUCTURE PLAN
1)
Introduction
These generic terms of reference are intended to give general guidance only to
development proponents and the Council/Administration in the preparation of
a conceptual scheme (CS) or an area structure plan (ASP). It should be noted
that the planning and development process is complex and that particular
circumstances may warrant the requirement by Council/Administration of
information or assurances not discussed here. Since each CS or ASP is different
and can have issues and variables unique to that particular CS or ASP, it is often
wise to have the CS or ASP guided by specifically tailored terms of reference,
beyond these generic ones.
Note: where a CS or ASP is required in support of a land use, subdivision and/or
development application, the Municipality will not accept the application as
complete unless it is supported by the required CS or ASP. Furthermore, the
Municipality will not accept a CS or ASP in support of an application unless it is
prepared by a professional planner. For the purposes of these terms of
reference, a professional planner, in the case of Alberta, is a person lawfully
entitled to the designation "Registered Professional Planner" (RPP).
2)
General
The ASP, as provided for under Sections 633 and 636-638 of the Municipal
Government Act (MGA), is intended to describe how an area of land under a
single owner or multiple-ownership can be used, subdivided and developed in a
coordinated way. It is a means of ensuring that the Intermunicipal
Development Plan (IDP) and Municipal Development Plan (MDP) are adhered
to, that development by one owner does not unnecessarily restrict the options
of another, and that development occurs in a way that is safe, efficient, and
aesthetically pleasing. The CS, which is similar in purpose and intent to the ASP,
is provided for under Section 4(5)(e) of the MGA Subdivision and Development
Regulation and is defined in the MGA under Section 653(4.4(b)).
By minimizing the delays caused by the need to coordinate developments on
an individual, application-by-application basis, an approved CS or ASP can set
the stage for the quick approval of an MDP or Land Use Bylaw (LUB)
amendment as well as subdivision and development proposals which conform
to its provisions.
3)
CS/ASP Boundary
The CS or ASP area is usually defined by prominent boundaries, which will
minimize the effects of one area of development on another. These might be
roads, natural features, existing uses or servicing boundaries. In the absence of
such tangible boundaries, property lines may be used.
4)
Land Use and Density
The CS or ASP must show the proposed land uses within the CS or ASP area. The
density of development may be indicated by showing tentative lot lines in a CS
or ASP covering a small area. In a CS or ASP dealing with larger area, it may be
sufficient to show proposed density ranges within sub-areas of the CS or ASP. In
addition, the CS or ASP needs to identify all of the existing land uses within and
surrounding the CS or ASP area and must address how any conflicts between
existing and proposed uses can be avoided and/or mitigated.
5)
Site Suitability
One of the primary purposes of a CS or ASP is to demonstrate that the lands in
question are suitable for the proposed uses, subdivision and development. A
suitable building site needs to be proven for each proposed use, subdivision and
development.
Note that in determining site suitability as it relates to on-site sewage treatment,
the rural Municipality may refer to and utilize the Model Process Reference
Document to guide their consideration of proposed subdivisions using private
sewage treatment systems.
Geotechnical information may also be required if the Municipality has reason to
believe that the land that is proposed to be subdivided may have significant
physical limitations to development or if the proposed use of the land creates
unusual circumstances that require additional consideration.
Note that some, or all, of this information may not be required if the land being
subdivided is serviced or to be serviced with piped municipal water and sewer
systems.
6)
Hazard Lands and Development Constraints
The CS or ASP shall show that all proposed subdivision and development is safe
from hazards and development constraints. To this end, the CS or ASP shall
identify all lands that are subject to flooding, subsidence, steep slopes, the
presence of sour gas or other transmission hazards or are otherwise hazardous or
constrained as far as development is concerned. Furthermore, the CS or ASP
shall indicate proposed methods and mechanisms to eliminate or mitigate the
effects of these development constraints including the submission by qualified
professionals of any required reports or supporting materials.
7)
Traffic Circulation/Access Management
The CS or ASP must show the proposed internal roads intended to directly serve
individual lots and how the internal roads will connect with the overall
transportation system of the Municipality. Where the staging of development
requires interim access to be provided, this shall be described in the CS or ASP.
In the case of applications adjacent to highways, working closely with Alberta
Transportation (AT) is critical to ensure they are on side with what is being
proposed in terms of access to their facilities both in the interim and over the
long term. Those preparing a CS or ASP adjacent to a highway are strongly
encouraged to contact AT directly at the outset to determine exactly what they
will need addressed as part of the CS or ASP process in order to secure their
approval. Getting approval from AT (ideally, securing their signature on the
document) goes a long way to smoothening out subsequent land use,
subdivision and development permit applications made pursuant to and in
accordance with the CS or ASP.
In support of an application for subdivision, development or redistricting, or as
part of a CS or ASP accompanying such an application, the Municipality and/or
Alberta Transportation may require that a traffic impact assessment (TIA) be
prepared in accordance with the Municipality's and/or Alberta Transportation's
requirements. The developer/applicant/proponent shall bear the responsibility
and the costs of preparing the TIA as well as any undertakings and
improvements specified in the TIA.
8)
Servicing
The CS or ASP should deal conceptually with ultimate proposed utility servicing
and any interim servicing. This includes potable water, sewage disposal, storm
water drainage and water systems for fire suppression, as required. Power, gas,
and telephone, etc. are usually assumed to be available, but the CS or ASP
should identify and if possible resolve any potential difficulties or complications.
A detailed design of servicing systems is not required, but the CS or ASP should
be clear in demonstrating that adequate servicing is feasible and available.
9)
Staging
Where a CS or ASP covers a large area, a complex development or involves a
number of separate ownerships, it is often necessary to demonstrate the way in
which subdivision and/or development will take place over time. Interim
provisions may be necessary with respect to servicing and access and the
effects of the development of one stage on another must be resolved.
10)
Community Services
The CS or ASP should indicate the means by which the development will be
provided with such community services as schools, recreation, policing, and, in
particular, fire protection. This is not necessarily restricted to the provision of land
for such facilities, but may also involve assurances that the agencies responsible
for such services have the capacity to provide them.
11)
Reserve Lands for Parks and Schools & Environmental Reserve
The MGA provides that whenever a subdivision takes place, the owner may be
required to provide to the municipality up to 10% of the land as reserve for the
purposes of park, tot lots, school sites, and so forth. If reserve land is to be taken,
it is important that the CS or ASP indicate the size, location and configuration of
the lot(s) to be dedicated. It is especially important that the above
requirements be determined in consultation with local school authority where
these lands are for school purposes.
In accordance with the MGA, the Municipality will also require that land which is
adjacent to a natural drainage course, subject to flooding, steeply sloped, a
wetland and so forth be dedicated as environmental reserve either in the form
of a lot or an easement.
A biophysical assessment prepared by a qualified professional and which
identifies areas of environmental and municipal reserve would be required as
part of an application for a CS or ASP. Consultation with Alberta Environment
can also be undertaken in order to help determine any environmental concerns
and to assist in identify those areas to be dedicated as reserves.
12)
Graphics
The land use (and other) maps provided with the text of a proposed CS or ASP
are especially important because they make clear to Council/Administration
and other users of the CS or ASP the character of the proposed development.
At the very minimum, basic mapping requirements are as follows:
general location within the Municipality/surrounding area;
relationship of the CS or ASP area to the IDP/MDP/LUB;
existing property lines and ownership;
existing natural or man-made physical features which may constrain
development including areas of environmental and municipal reserve;
proposed land uses and densities specified in as much detail as possible;
internal road/lot layout;
existing servicing and proposed servicing concept(s) re: water, sewage
treatment/disposal and stormwater management;
staging of development with interim provisions noted, and,
a recommended zoning scheme (highly recommended but optional).
Additional mapping may be required depending on the issues that arise and/or
need to be addressed in the CS or ASP. The required maps must be clear and
at a scale which is appropriate to their purpose. The information outlined above
can be combined, resulting in fewer maps, provided this does not result in an
unacceptable reduction in legibility.
13)
Implementation
An ASP must be adopted by bylaw following the process/requirements spelled
out in the MGA under Sections 692, 636, 606 and 230. In accordance with
Section 638 of the Act, an ASP must be consistent with the IDP and MDP and any
other statutory plan in effect. The CS can be adopted by a resolution of Council
or by bylaw as determined by Council. Since the CS is not a statutory plan, it is
not required by statute to be consistent with all other statutory plans; however,
given that a CS and ASP are very similar in intent and purpose, the Municipality
would ensure that any CS is consistent with any statutory plan in effect.
The agreement of all the owners within or adjacent to the CS or ASP area is not
legally necessary for the adopting (or amending) bylaw/resolution to be passed.
The implementation of a CS or ASP may also require cooperation between
owners in terms of land trades, temporary rights-of-way across one another's
land, and/or joint subdivision applications.
Specific approvals must still be obtained with respect to any required MDP and
LUB amendments, subdivision, development agreements and development
approval. These can be pursued after the CS or ASP has been approved or can
be applied for at the same time as the CS or ASP approval if subdivision and/or
development are imminent. It should be made clear, however, that all
subsequent processes depend on the approval of what must precede (i.e.: the
CS or ASP).
14)
Process
The following is a general process for the submission and consideration by the
Municipality of a CS or ASP proposal. The steps indicated may be modified as
required by specific circumstances affecting a particular CS or ASP proposal.
[Note that the following process does not at all preclude informal public open
houses/meetings held by the developer or by the Municipality; in fact, they may
be encouraged and/or required.]
A. The owner/developer shall be responsible for costs incurred for:
i.
any plan, report, analysis, study, etc. required by the Municipality.
ii.
all reasonable legal fees and disbursements incurred by the
Municipality in the negotiation, preparation and execution of any
required agreement(s) and all reasonable legal fees and
disbursements, engineering fees, planning fees and any other
consulting fees incurred by the Municipality in the preparation,
performance and enforcement of the terms and conditions of an
agreement;
iii.
all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the Municipality in
testing any work performed or material supplied by the Developer
pursuant to an agreement;
iv.
cost of all work and materials required for the work repaired or re-
done by reason of orders and directions of the Municipality;
v.
additional costs incurred by reason of the Municipality requiring
additional workers, machinery and equipment;
vi.
all costs and charges incurred by the Municipality for the work to be
performed and carried out by the Municipality and its staff pursuant
to an agreement along with the reasonable charges by the
Municipality for the time spent by the Municipality in performing the
obligations to be performed or carried out by the Municipality
under an agreement.
B. Prior to making any submissions to the Municipality, the proponent should
contact as many of the owners as possible who would be affected by the
CS or ASP to discuss their potential involvement in the planning process.
Responsibilities for the costs of CS or ASP preparation, arrangements for
group decision-making and identification of an individual representative for
the group should be resolved as early as possible in the process.
C. If the development is large enough, a brief and general proposal to
undertake the preparation of a CS or ASP ought be submitted to and
approved by the Municipality prior to commencement of work on the full-
blown CS or ASP proposal. The submission should deal with proposed CS or
ASP boundaries, the general availability of services, the relationship of the
proposed development to the IDP and MDP, and the potential for resolution
of any specific difficulties which can be identified at such an early stage in
the process. It should also be made clear exactly who is making the
proposal and who their representative is to be.
D. The proponent should gather the information required for the CS or ASP by
contacting the appropriate municipal and other agencies. In all cases, the
CS or ASP needs to be prepared by a qualified, professional planner with
assistance from qualified, professional engineers and other specialists as
required. This is very important.
E. Once a Draft CS or ASP has been prepared, the proponent should submit a
number of copies (text and drawings) to the Municipality as well as the
Municipality's planning consultants for an initial review. If required, the Draft
CS or ASP may need to be referred to the Municipality's engineering
consultants for review as well. Sufficient copies should be submitted so that
all internal staff and any external resources reviewing the Draft CS or ASP
have a copy. The cost for this review shall be borne by the developer.
F. After this initial Municipal review, the Municipality and/or the Municipality's
planning/engineering consultants will inform the proponents' planning
consultant in writing of any initial concerns or requirements for additional
information. A revised Draft CS or ASP or additional information is then
submitted as required.
G. The Municipality then circulates the Draft CS or ASP (as revised) to various
affected agencies for their comments (e.g. School District(s), Health
Authority, Alberta Environment, Alberta Transportation, an adjacent
municipality if applicable, etc.).
H. Once the circulation to external agencies is complete, Municipal staff
and/or the Municipality's planning/engineering consultants issue a written
consolidated response (including copies of letters received from
respondents, if appropriate) to the proponents' representative.
I. A meeting is held between Municipal staff, the Municipality's planning and
engineering consultants, and the proponents' representatives (and others as
required) to resolve any outstanding issues. More than one meeting may be
required if outstanding issues are difficult to resolve.
J. Once the proponent is satisfied that the Draft CS or ASP has the support of
the Municipal staff, their consultants and other affected parties, the
proponent prepares a final Draft CS or ASP reflecting any changes agreed
upon and submits a sufficient number of copies to the Municipality for
Council's consideration. Note that the proponent may submit a final Draft
CS or ASP for Council's consideration without the full support of the staff, their
consultants and/or responding agencies if an impasse has been reached
and they wish to make their case directly to Council.
K. Council may either table the Draft CS or ASP for further revisions or give first
reading to an adopting bylaw or "approval in principle" in the case of a
resolution of Council as an indication of its tentative support. If further
revisions are required by Council, the proponent makes those revisions and
resubmits the CS or ASP for first reading in the case of an adopting bylaw or
consideration by Council in the case of a resolution. If first reading to a
bylaw is given, Council should set a date for a public hearing as required by
the MGA.
L. Council provides notification pursuant to Section 606 of the MGA that they
are considering a bylaw or resolution and that a public hearing (bylaw) or
Council meeting (resolution) is being held in relation to the bylaw or
resolution. Council may require further revisions prior to second reading of
the adopting bylaw or give the adopting bylaw second reading. Similarly,
the Council may require revisions to the CS prior to voting on the resolution.
M. If Council agrees unanimously, it may give third reading to the adopting
bylaw at the same meeting. Otherwise, third reading cannot be given until
the next meeting of Council.
N. Once the adopting bylaw or resolution is approved by Council, the
proponent provides the Municipality with one "camera-ready" (i.e.:
reproducible) copy of the adopted CS or ASP, text and drawings and a
required number of copies so that it can distribute copies to the public as
required.
As noted above, other approvals are required prior to development. However,
the existence of an approved CS or ASP normally helps to significantly reduce
the time and expense involved in obtaining those approvals and should result in
more orderly and efficient development, which is to everyone's advantage
(particularly the developer).