MD OF BIGHORN – Two documents to help guide development in the Municipal District of Bighorn have been revised by council to add efficiency to the process for future development proposals.
MD council approved the revision of the standards for major plans and subdivision servicing as well as a new schedule in the standards for major plans.
“I think these plans are better … and more user friendly,” said Bighorn Reeve Lisa Rosvold.
The ask first came to council in January, but was postponed a month for staff to add more clarity to the documents after concerns were brought forward by members of council. Changes have been reviewed by legal counsel.
The standards for major plans and subdivision servicing policy was established to outline the minimum requirements to prepare and approve area structure plans (ASP), area restructure plans (ARP) and conceptual schemes for future subdivision and development of land.
Under the new document, its intent is to help “establish the engineering design and construction servicing standards for the subdivision of land.”
The standards for major plans help define both the process and requirements for infrastructure servicing in ASP, ARP and conceptual schemes. Both are living documents that are regularly reviewed and updated.
The original standards for major plans and subdivision servicing policy was asked to be rescinded and replaced with the new document, while the standards for major plans asked for the original Schedule A to be rescinded and replaced with a new one.
Staff have previously told council Schedule B, which deals with subdivision servicing, will return for a council decision in the coming months. The two policy documents were originally approved in Dec. 2020.
The changes were brought forward after the policies had been used with developments that were coming forward in the community.
Bill Luka, the MD’s director of operations, said in discussions with developers, they were able to finetune them to be more efficient.
Developers brought forward concerns such as having a professional liability of $2 million and reimbursing an engineer to do a professional third-party review.
The changes led to removal of redundant and duplicated language, removal of the assignment of department responsibilities and extension of the review period from 21 to 30 business days to give municipal staff more time to complete its review of applications.
Under the original documents, three developers went through the process and provided feedback for the municipality.
“It was based off the first two that we made the changes and the third right off the get-go,” Luka said. “We said these don’t apply to operations we won’t be looking after these requirements so they didn’t spend any time discussing or addressing them on operations behalf.”
Applicants who filed under the now previous policies will still have to follow the guidelines, while new applicants will move through the revised version.
Rosvold asked if municipal staff would help guide the developers under the old policies
“We identified that the first set may have had some deficiencies or errors or bigger asks than what we need,” Rosvold said. “Is there a way for administration to help guide those three applicants that are going through the original process to help guide them so they’re not doing work we no longer see as needed?”
Luka noted they have already been working with the applicants to ensure a smooth transition.
“We’ve been working with the applicants and we agreed to dismiss the items that planning is now required, so they haven’t initiated them for us,” he said. “We’re administrating these with the intent of the new plan and working with the development industry and hoping to make things clearer and better for them.”
