The working document does not state clear objectives. Councilors are elected and paid to plan for ways in which new development might fit into and benefit local communities. Residents do not want to see existing values destroyed by greed, whether the development in question might be a gravel pit, clear cut logging, confined feeding operation, nuclear power plant, or any other project. If a goal is to bring employment into the Fort Assiniboine area, can you please explain why it would not be more beneficial to the community if the local gravel operators had the opportunity to sell their gravel first, and reclaim some of the existing pits, rather than opening new pits for developers who will never live here?
The working document attempts to substitute operating restrictions for land use planning. This will only punish existing local gravel operators, and will not address the real issues of cumulative negative impacts of large new pits added to existing ones. Can you please explain when or how this council will plan to control the numbers and impacts of new aggregate developments, and how many pits is the county prepared to monitor?
The working document does not provide for protection of agricultural land. Numerous Alberta municipalities are actively supporting agriculture by various means, including protection of agricultural lands. Why are Woodlands councilors ignoring the Municipal Government Act and their own Municipal Development Plan, both requiring protection of agricultural lands? Can you please explain the county's criteria for rezoning farm land to natural resource extraction?
The working document includes repeated references to gravel pit reclamation, including repeated requirements for plans, security de...
... middle of paper ...
...? Or better yet, can you please explain why the county cannot plan future gravel extraction for areas less likely to impact existing residents, businesses, or recreation areas?
The working document available to the public does not differentiate proposed changes from existing bylaws, and does not include relevant sections of acts or bylaws for reference, so does not give the public sufficient information to respond to. Also, many residents will not waste their time in these meetings, because they do not believe councilors base decisions on bylaws or public input anyway? Are councilors aware that many residents will not express concerns in public or in writing, for fear of repercussions from county staff? Do councilors believe this meeting to be fair public consultation in these circumstances, and if not, what plans will be made for more effective consultation?