Intermuncipal Development Plan Bylaw - MD of Bighorn 02/19
Mountain View County, Alberta
This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot f3f177db0c15 · verified 2026-06-08 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY
BYLAW NO. 02/19
INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BETWEEN
MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY AND
THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF BIGHORN
Page 1
Bylaw No. 02/19
Mountain View County
Province of Alberta
Bylaw No. 02/19
A BYLAW OF MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA TO ADOPT THE
INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BETWEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY AND THE MUNICIPAL
DISTRICT OF BIGHORN
SECTION 1 - SHORT TITLE
1.01
This Bylaw may be cited as the Municipal District of Bighorn lntermunicipal Development Plan.
SECTION 2 - AUTHORITY
2.01
Section 631(1) of the Municipal Government Act, Chapter M-26 Statues of Alberta 2000, and
amendments, provides that two or more Councils of municipalities that have common
boundaries must, by each passing a Bylaw, adopt an lntermunicipal Development Plan;
2.02
Notice of the proposed Bylaw and Public Hearing was given pursuant to Section 606(2) of the
Municipal Government Act;
2.03
A Public Hearing was scheduled and held on May 22, 2019 pursuant to Section 692 of the
Municipal Government Act;
SECTION 3 - ENACTMENT
3.01
Schedule "A" which forms part of this Bylaw shall constitute the provisions of the
lntermunicipal Development Plan between Mountain View County and the Municipal District
of Bighorn as may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 4 - EFFECTIVE DATE
4.01
This Bylaw shall come into effect at such time as it has received third (3rd) reading and has
been signed in accordance with the Municipal Government Act.
Received first reading April 10, 2019.
Received second reading May 22, 2019.
Received third reading June 12, 2019.
~~--=
.. =======------
Date of Signing
MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF BIGHORN NO.8
BYLAW 04/19
A BYLAW OF THE MUN[CIPAL DISTRICT OF BIGHORN NO.8, IN THE PROVINCE OF
ALBERTA, BEING A BYLAW TO ADOPT THE INTERMUNlCIPAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN BEWTEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY AND THE MUNCIPAL DISTRICT OF
BIGHORN NO.8. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT,
CHAPTER M-26, RSA 2000 AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS pursuant to the authority granted by the Municipal Government Act, two or more
Councils may, by each passing a Bylaw, adopt an Intermunicipal Development Plan;
AND WHEREAS Council deems it desirable to adopt an Intermunicipal Development Plan with
Mountain View County;
AND WHEREAS a notice of the proposed Bylaw and Public Hearing was given pursuant to
Section 606(2) of the Municipal Government Act;
AND WHEREAS a Public Hearing was scheduled and held on May 28, 2019 pursuant to Section
692 of the Municipal Government Act;
NOW THEREFORE after due compliance with the relevant provisions of the Municipal
Government Act, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8 in the
Province of Alberta, duly assembled in Council, enacts as follows:
1. Bylaw 04/19 with attached Schedule 'A' being the Intermunicipal Development Plan
between Mountain View County and Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8, is hereby
adopted.
READ A FIRST TIME THIS 9m DAY OF APRIL, 2019.
READ A SECOND TIME THIS 1 (rH DAY OF JUNE, 2019.
READ A THIRD TIME THIS 1 frH DAY OF JUNE, 2019.
~
Mountain View
COUNTY
INTERMUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BETWEEN:
MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY,
a municipality incorporated under the laws of Alberta
- and -
THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF BIGHORN
a municipality incorporated underthe laws of Alberta
A.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the lntermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) between Mountain View
County (MVC) and the Municipal District of Bighorn (M.D.) is to formalize and define
the relationship between the two municipalities.
1) The IDP sets the policy framework for planning matters that includes future land
use, environmental, transportation and items of mutual interest as it applies to
lands in proximity to the shared boundary and defined in the IDP Area.
2) The IDP policies define how communication, cooperation, decision-making and
dispute resolution shall occur for lands within the IDP Area.
B.
GOALS
1) Maintain local autonomy with each municipality responsible for decision making
within their municipal jurisdiction.
2) Ensure long-term compatibility of future land use within both municipalities.
3) Recognize that agriculture continues to be the primary use of land in the IDP
area and support the preservation of agricultural land except where statutory
plans support non-agricultural use.
4) Recognize that land owned and developed by the Crown is not subject to the
municipal planning and development requirements.
5) Establish plan administration, amendment and dispute resolution procedures.
C.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
The IDP was prepared to meet the requirements of Section 631, 636 and 638 of the
Municipal Government Act (MGA) that mandates IDPs between municipalities.
D.
PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS
The IDP was jointly prepared by MVC and the MD with oversight from an
lntermunicipal Collaboration Committee (ICC) consisting of Councillors and Senior
Administration of both municipalities. Opportunity for public and stakeholder input
and involvement were through dedicated webpages and communication in the local
newspapers. The ICC reviewed the draft IDP prior notifying all affected landowners
by mail and scheduling a Public Hearing.
Page 2
E.
IDP AREA
The IDP Area is defined as half a mile (0.5) on each side of the shared boundary as
shown on the IDP maps. IDP policies are limited to the IDP Area except when specific
IDP policies cover a wider area.
The opportunities and constraints of the IDP Area were examined and included
existing:
Statutory Plans
Zoning
Ownership (Crown, Municipal, Private)
Development
Roads
Oil and Gas
Confined Feeding Operations (CFO)
Environmentally Significant Areas (Provincial and Municipal)
Provincial Gravel Deposits
Historical Resource Value (HRV) Site
Page 3
Statutory Plans Map
-Highway
-
County Collector Network (CCN)
D
'fowns/Village
lDP Area
South McDougal f'lats
Water Valle\'-\Vinchcll T .ake
Statutory Plans
Map
S,;:;,,Jc: L-17.J.9/X>
.'-.<IJ lflU CS/1:.~ H7JI ,t/:,P 1-8,
r,....,,.,-,r,-
.. ,., _ _.,,,...,.,
Mountain View
COUNTY -
Page 4
Land Ownership Map
-- - I -
-- -
-- II
--
- -
II
-1
I
~
"
---
Tc>--I
- a .,.
I
Ill
1 -·
I
I 11---
I ---I
---···--=-
-- ---
I
------
I I
I
I
I
~I
I
-
-- _I
l["JI
l-ll
iii
i
~Ill
OFUl(,HORN NOH
Ownership
Map
D111c:J/U/ZOl?
N
Scale: 1:173,900
-=-===---""'
--==--c::=====------·'"
J\'iLD_ J9lJJ_ CSRS_JOT!lf_AEP_Fornt
Projn:1imi: 'Jr.'m . .,,, . .,.,~c_Alt·r,::11,.,-
Mountain View County
1./0!J T11.p. R.i J/0 / P~1!,,l B,i_~ /VO, Dtdsbury. 1B Cmi.ul, WM OIPV
T .HHJH.Hf1 F40).Jh9J07 ·1;,i/rm 1.S7.7.lM.97j.J
NVlllt,l ~l.,1°0
- :I\Y,lilfl).m -N
Note: r,.r,,t Rt-,,i »oosibte for Errors or Ort1i.1.vion.v
A
C*o?
Mountain View
COUNTY
Legend
-Ilighway
--
County Collector Network(C:C:N)
CJ Towns/Village
-
-IDPJ\rea
[___
I Private Land
-
County ] .and
-
Crown ] .and
Page 5
Land Use Map
I"'+?
Mountain View
COUNTY
LandUsc
M11p
A
/',! If) l'MJ t:SRl
J4T.\f .u:r ,._,
l'Nf, <dH -n-~,.._.11,., ... .,
Monnt:,i., Vio,w C'.u1111ry
-TDP,lrca
Aig Horn_l .cgend
Bighout Laudttse Zoning
1111 Xau,ul R..,,o,.,,-.,, Elltrxt.ons Di,!ti<t ;XR)
[:J
,\;:ti~ul1we c~"-~1,a1i..,:, D:ll!.icl ,,.-\C) [=1 Rmal Rl·r,,.,,,n., n,,,nn 11.1
1111 F"'~'"Y n,uri,: (17;
···-- .. ~·---,--
.... ,,~ ,.._.~,1t..
,1,u1«.-c,,..,.""°""""'""'
MVC._J .egend
- Highw:1y
-County Collcc-tor :",/{'twork(CCN)
[=1 Town..,/Village
Land lJ"e Zoning
Land Use ClaHli
CJ Agriculruml District(.-\)
CJ ,-\~nculmrnl (2) Distccr (A(2))
..
l.ocnl Conuncrcial District (C-l.C)
CJ
Business PMk District (I-BP)
Ill
H1·avy Tml11stri11l Ois1rict (l-Hl)
Ill
r\g-grcg:tt<' F.xlrJc.t.io11/Procf''i!>i11g District (, \ FP)
C:J Parks and Conservation District (P-l'C}
1111 Parks Md Recreation District {P-l'R)
Ill
Parks and Comprehensive Recreational Disrncr {P-PCR)
[::J Country R.--sidf'ntinl District (R-CR)
Ill
lnstit11tiom1l,Erln1·;11io11al ;1,1d Cultural District {S-IF.C)
Countee Residential (I) Distocr (H.-CIU) Ill
Airport Disnicr (S.,\P)
CJ Residential Farmstead Drstuct R-1
1111 Direct Control
Page 6
Gravel Deposits Map
..
.I~
-
r n
r·~
n 1--
I-
'lllDl8
,-,~--:
L
r '1 ') L
...,_
I
---l
-
I
...,
--'
-
i:;:- ,.,
COUNT\)
"
1---'11.IQUNTAIN T 1611'
"'
r l -'
,/7. A
=
rilF-I.J.1
'
l
I::!
L
0
('
-- 7
M.D OF Rft":.t.l~
DI
L]2-
~
I-
0---
[
-·
- ,.
L,
-
' t-
C
~
f--.r
I
~
--
''11
>--
·- 7
-
. \.
- f-----,
\.
I
-"
l,r
l
""
_,
'°
_ ..
\
,---'
~
I-< y- -
I- >--
,,
I-
e-,-
h.
3-
..
4
:
)
~· -
~
,..,
582---
0
,)
-
I- T
D D
~
,f-L{
.._._l--------+-+---A--1'-1-/---t-+--l--t'--<~i---tr-11
[f F--~~~-t-'r-t-
1- ~
i
t
.,,./ ~
-
I
"'1 "
IC;
(.,
'1 > ..
-
I -
I
'A
I-
II f
V
-
I- I-
u
>~
I-
~
\
I
~
-
,.
'
µ
; Ill
:
~ "'-
~
i::..:i
-.
n ~
"h ;"
".
-
F
/
ffl ?ft'
~
n .. I-
= -
I - ~ . I
L
r-,
-
Ur .... ll!i
L
-""; J,_
- \.+ ~ .t-: --~ z:
-«
[-
-
\
I
1-,
h
j'
,.1-
:::,
Lv·
till
j
~ , .... !!JI F-1.
MOUN'I'AlN VIEW COtJ~'TI - '
_J
w
-
'
579
~
-
-
""
·- '-
~ -'
"I
·, :
:
In
C
I
-~~
I-
,--
fl.
~ 7:l
/411
[_1
rrts?
Mountain View
COUNTY
I I
I
I
Gravel Deposits
Map
S-._-:Ue: l:17J,900
"
-=--===---'··
A
O i,, -='':::,; -'c'===-' ---1-\L
NW 1#,J QII~ /(TJ,11 Al:I'_~.,,...,
l'r,,ju,;,,.,T,.,,..,,.~,__.lfu, .. ,.,....
Mountuin View Counly
·-~- i"1}'1~}1;;;; ·-;~~t~:,;.";.:"-;.:,~ ~-~~ ~:~~ m,
"/,··-- , Hr< :~,,,:;;;. :
:, ;;;,, . ""'"
Ll_f1.noFBIGHOR.:.'l~
ROCK ·v,r.,,.-coui'-rv-
-u DJ]
r
Legend
-
Highway
-
dirty GR;\Vf'.f.
-
County Collector Nctwork(CCN)
unknown Glv\VEL
D
Towns/Village
-
clean SANDY cav\\lEL
-!DP Area
Gravel Deposits Provincial (AGS)
MATERIAL
unknown sandv GRAVEL
-
clean Gravel
dirty SANDY GRAVEL
-
dirty C:RAVP.T.l.Y S,'\ND
unknown SAND
-
unknown SAND AND GRAVEL
Page 7
F.
IDP POLICIES
Agricultural will continue to be the primary land use in the IDP Area except where
statutory plan(s) and the Land Use Bylaw for each municipality support non-
agricultural use.
The initiating municipality is the municipality that has jurisdiction over the lands for
which an application has been made.
The responding municipality is the municipality that shares the boundary with the
initiating municipality.
General Policies
1) There is no identified need for annexation of land by either municipality and the
shared boundary shall remain the boundary to define the jurisdiction between
the two municipalities.
2) Changes in land use through the process of redesignation, subdivision and
development within the IDP Area of each municipality shall be subject to the
statutory plan policies of the Municipal Development Plan (MOP), Area Structure
Plan(s) (ASP), Concept Plans and the Land Use Bylaw of the municipality having
jurisdiction.
3) All redesignation and subdivision applications within the IDP Area of the
initiating municipality shall be circulated for comment to landowners and the
responding municipality's Administration as required in the Municipal
Government Act and as identified in the initiating municipality's Land Use Bylaw
and statutory plan policies.
4) All discretionary use Development Permits within the IDP Area of the initiating
municipality shall be circulated for comment and the notice of the issuance of a
Development Permit shall be given to landowners and the responding
municipality's Administration as identified in the initiating municipality's Land
Use Bylaw.
5) All new Area Structure Plans, Concept Plans, amendments to the MOP, ASPs or
Concept Plans within the IDP Area of the initiating municipality or Land Use
Bylaw amendments of the initiating municipality that may affect lands within the
IDP Area shall be circulated for comment by the initiating municipality to the
landowners and responding municipality's Administration as required in the
Municipal Government Act and as identified in the initiating municipality's Land
Use Bylaw and statutory plan policies.
6) The road network shall be maintained by the municipality having jurisdiction
unless a separate agreement specifies joint maintenance, maintenance swap
or any other terms acceptable to both municipalities.
Page 8
7)
Environmental protection measures shall be implemented as provided for by the
municipality having jurisdiction.
8)
Crown land as described in Section 618 of the Municipal Government Act is
exempt from Part 17 Planning and Development.
Each municipality shall
encourage the Crown to apply their statutory plan and Land Use Bylaw
requirements to the development of leased Crown land.
Specific Policies
In addition to the General Land Use Policies, the specific policies apply to the
following specific land uses:
Confined Feeding Operations (CFOs)
9) Applications for new or the expansion of CFOs within the IDP Area shall be
reviewed in accordance with the statutory plan policies of the municipality
receiving Natural Resource Conservation Board notification.
Direct Control Districts
10) Applications for redesignation to Direct Control Districts and any subsequent
Development Permits in a Direct Control District within the IDP Area of the
initiating municipality shall be circulated for comment to the landowners and the
responding municipality's Administration as identified in the Land Use Bylaw.
The Administrative review of the responding municipality shall focus on the
impact on municipal infrastructure and offsite impacts on surrounding land
uses.
Resource Extraction (Gravel Pits) and Solid Waste Disposal Sites (Landfills)
11) In addition to the circulation provisions in the initiating municipality's Land Use
Bylaw and statutory plans, if a gravel pit or landfill application for redesignation
or Development Permit is within the IDP Area of an initiating municipality and
the proposed haul route includes roads within the jurisdiction of the responding
municipality, the application shall be circulated to the responding municipality
for comment and any landowners adjacent to the haul route. The responding
municipality's Administration may support the route if the impact is acceptable
and subject to the applicable Agreement(s) for the upgrade or maintenance of
the road. If the impact is unacceptable to the responding municipality's
Administration, the route will not be supported, and the applicant will have to
propose and determine an alternative route.
Logging
12) Logging on Crown land shall follow the Provincial approval process. Logging on
municipal land or privately-owned land shall follow the approval process of the
Page 9
municipality havingjurisdiction. If the proposed haul route includes roads within
the jurisdiction of the responding municipality, the application shall be
circulated to the responding municipality for comment and any landowners
adjacent to the haul route. The responding municipality's Administration may
support the route if the impact is acceptable and subject to the applicable
Agreement(s) for the upgrade or maintenance of the road.
If the impact is
unacceptable to the responding municipality's Administration, the route will not
be supported, and the applicant will have to propose and determine an
alternative route.
Non-agricultural Proposals of Regional Significance
13) If required by a statutory plan or Land Use Bylaw of the initiating municipality,
non-agricultural applications for redesignation or Development Permits that are
of regional significance and has or may have a detrimental effect on the
responding municipality's infrastructure and land uses through offsite impacts
that are located outside of the IDP Area, shall be circulated to the responding
municipality's Administration for comment.
G. INTERMUNICIPAL CIRCULATION PROCESS
To effectively circulate and provide comments on redesignation, subdivision and
Development Permit applications, new or amending MOP or ASPs or LUB that may
affect the IDP Area, the following policies shall apply to the circulation process.
1) The initiating municipality's Administration shall provide the receiving
municipality's Administration with the same time line to respond as what is
provided to neighbours and guided by the initiating municipality's Land Use
Bylaw and statutory plans.
2) The responding municipality's Administrative response on a circulation shall
focus on the impact on the municipality's infrastructure including roads, utilities
and drainage as well as offsite impacts on land uses within the responding
municipality's jurisdiction unless broader consideration is provided for in
specific land use policies.
H. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
To effectively deal with concerns, disagreements or objections that arise in the
circulation process the following policies shall apply.
Redesignation and/or subdivision with concurrent statutory plan amendments; new
Area Structure Plans and Concept Plans; amendments to the MOP, ASPs or Concept
Plans within the IDP Area; or Land Use Bylaw amendments that may have a
detrimental effect on lands with the IDP Area
Page 10
Step 1
1) Administration of a responding municipality that identifies concerns that may
result in an objection to a redesignation and/or subdivision with concurrent
statutory plan amendments, new Area Structure Plans and Concept Plans,
amendments to the MOP or ASPs within the IDP Area; or Land Use Bylaw
amendments that may affect lands with the IDP Area shall, within the circulation
time line, request in writing, an Administrative meeting with the initiating
municipality to discuss the objection.
2)
No decision shall be made by the initiating municipality until dispute resolution
step 2 and step 3 concludes in an attempt to resolve the concerns.
Step 2
3)
If the Administrative meeting cannot resolve the concerns, the reviewing
municipality must provide an objection in writing within seven (7) days after the
conclusion of the Administrative meeting to the initiating municipality and may
notify the initiating municipality within the same time frame, that mandatory
mediation start.
Mandatory mediation shall not apply to subdivision
applications. A mutually agreed upon Mediator shall be named to facilitate
resolution of the disagreement within thirty (30) days of the written request to
enter into a mediation process. The two (2) municipalities shall share equally in
the cost of mediation, including any remuneration, travel and lodging expenses
associated with the mediation.
Step 3
4)
If the mediation does not resolve the objection; or if a mediation request was
not made in writing within seven (7) days after the conclusion of the
Administrative meeting, the initiating municipality may proceed with a decision
and the reviewing municipality will have the opportunity to appeal the decision
to the Municipal Government Board in accordance with the Municipal
Government Act.
Discretionary Use Development Permits
Step 1
5) Administration of a responding municipality that identifies concerns that may
result in an objection to a discretionary use Development Permit circulation
within the IDP Area shall, within the circulation time line, request in writing, an
Administrative meeting with the initiating municipality to discuss the concerns.
6)
No decision shall be made by the initiating municipality until the Administrative
meeting considered the concerns in an attempt to resolve the concerns.
Page 11
Step 2
7)
If the Administrative meeting cannot resolve the concerns, the reviewing
municipality's Administration must provide the objection in writing to the
initiating municipality within seven (7) days after the conclusion of the
Administrative meeting. The initiating municipality may proceed with a decision
and the reviewing municipality may appeal the decision to the Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board in accordance with the Municipal Government Act.
I.
PLAN ADMINISTRATION
It is not anticipated that the land use and development and intermunicipal planning
context within the IDP Area will change significantly over time as current statutory
plans support agriculture as the primary use and the preservation of agricultural
land; the Crown owns significant land within the IDP Area; and development
challenges to provide legal and physical access to land. To guide the Administration
of the IDP the following policies shall apply.
1)
If an IDP amendment is recommended by both Administrations, the
recommendation shall be considered by both Councils to direct an
Administrative initiated IDP amendment.
2) A joint Administrative review of the IDP shall be scheduled no later than four (4)
years from the date of adoption and shall be steered by the lntermunicipal
Collaboration Committee.
3) The lntermunicipal Collaboration Committee shall consist of four members,
being two Councillors from the M.D. and two Councillors from the County.
The Chief Administrative Officers will be advisory staff to the Committee.
J.
PLAN AMENDMENT, REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT
Plan amendments and the Administration of the IDP shall be guided by the following
policies.
1) An Administrative initiated IDP amendment shall receive direction from both
Councils to proceed and shall be jointly prepared by Administrations.
2) In the event that either municipality identifies concerns with the amendment,
the three-step dispute resolution process as outlined in Section H shall be
followed.
3) An IDP amendment shall only be enacted if approved by both municipalities.
4) A Bylaw to repeal this IDP may be considered by both Councils if the repealing
Bylaw at the same time considers a new IDP; or if the repealing Bylaw complies
with Provincial legislation.
Page 12
K.
CORRESPONDENCE
1)
Written notice under this Framework shall be addressed as follows:
a. In the case of the Municipal District of Bighorn, to:
The Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8
c/o Chief Administrative Officer
Box 310
Exshaw, Alberta, TOL 2CO
b. In the case of Mountain View County, to:
Mountain View County
c/o Chief Administrative Officer
Postal Bag 100
Didsbury, Alberta, TOM OWO
ENACTMENT
This IDP is approved separately, by the respective Councils, by bylaw in accordance with
Section 631 of the Municipal Government Act, Chapter M-26, RSA 2000
M.D. of Bighorn Bylaw No. 04/19 given third reading on June 11, 2019
Mountain View County Bylaw No. 02/19 given third reading on June 12, 2019
Page 13