A Red Deer County landowner plans to appeal a decision made by council Tuesday to deny his area structure plan for a subdivision southeast of Red Deer.ìI've laboured long and hard over this,î said Daniel Turlock of the proposed Spirit Creek Subdivision that would include eight county-residential lots in total.ìIt's frustrating,î said Turlock who explained he's been working on plans since 2000.ìIn '93 I bought the subdivision and enjoyed the size but didn't feel it was used to its full potential Ö I've jumped through a bunch of hoops,î he said after the meeting.Council denied second reading for future development of six additional lots, citing concerns from neighbours as reason.ìWell, I must say we had so many letters, my briefcase I couldn't lift it ñ and those were all in objection,î said Div. 3 Coun. Penny Archibald.ìWhat I don't want to do is create more conflict in the community when I can see it's going to happen,î agreed Mayor Jim Wood.Archibald also said council needs to stand behind its polices. The plan didn't comply with the Municipal Development Plan that directs most future growth to existing or new hamlets, requires paved access and internal subdivision road, and discourages residential location within the setbacks of a confined feeding operation.About 10 people were in the gallery and two residents voiced their objections against the area structure plan, while 12 submitted letters in opposition.Neighbours were concerned about the drain on freshwater aquifer, visibility of school buses into the subdivision, the threat of wildlife and pollution to Piper River with increased sewage and wastewater.Sustainable Resources Development submitted a request for a portion of Piper Creek to be set aside as an environmental reserve and the Energy Resource Conservation Board noted abandoned wells have been identified within the application area.ìOur son is at Olds College right now taking agriculture so it is going to be turning over to 4th generation,î said Janine Olson, a nearby resident. ìI believe through a lot of the plans through the county we should be protected with the right to farm.îTurlock responded to comments, and said he's been studying the area for years.ìOver the years, these subdivisions and lots have been taken off of parcels around us and near us and we feel that the impact that we are going to be introducing to the neighbours will be minimal, as it is defined in county bylaw and regulations that anytime there is more than two titles on a quarter section of land it is a multi-lot subdivision or it is at least defined as that.îHe said if he had to go ahead with the pavement policy, it would restrict farmers and the agriculture community, ìlimiting their access to roads when it needn't be because of road bans and other implications.î He said when he proposed the subdivision in 2000, the policy wasn't in place so he hadn't explored that option.Council unanimously denied the application. Div. 6 Coun. George Gerhke was absent.Turlock has 14 days to appeal the decision.
