Sturgeon County has filed a formal dispute with the region's provincially mandated growth management board, saying members breached process and were discriminatory when the development plan for the Villeneuve Airport area was rejected in April.
The Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board's (EMRB) dispute-resolution committee will meet on June 30 for an in-camera facilitated discussion with county representatives to discuss the claim. According to the June 30 meeting agenda, the dispute resolution committee consists of representatives from Edmonton, Spruce Grove, Morinville, and Strathcona County.
EMRB spokesperson Barb Smith said in an email the facilitated discussion is the first step in the board's dispute resolution process, and any potential solutions reached by the committee will be made public and presented to board members in August.
An administrative report included in the June 30 agenda says Sturgeon County filed the dispute on May 30, some six weeks after the EMRB board rejected the county's proposed Area Structure Plan (ASP) for the area surrounding the Villeneuve Airport.
As the EMRB is a provincially mandated growth management board, member municipalities must submit high-level planning documents like ASPs for approval before municipalities can move forward.
Sturgeon County's Villeneuve Airport ASP seeks to designate space for industrial and commercial development related to aerospace, green technology, logistics, and “agriculture innovation” around the airport. The ASP projects the creation of about $1.8 billion in economic growth, along with 1,700 jobs in 20 years, although about $370 million in infrastructure development would be needed to achieve those figures.
When the EMRB board voted against the ASP in April, members including St. Albert's Mayor Cathy Heron said the ASP was too vague and didn't conform to EMRB policies enshrined in the current long-term growth plan.
Seven of the 13 EMRB members were in favour of the plan, two short of the nine votes required by board rules. Those opposed were Beaumont, Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, St. Albert, and Stony Plain.
In a 150-page written submission filed ahead of the facilitated discussion, the county argues the growth plan lacks policies specifically applicable to the creation or expansion of a planned major employment area, as the ASP intends to accomplish.
“As such, the focus of the board should have been on whether (the ASP) aligned with the long-term interests of the region,” the county's submission reads.
The submission also states board members mistakenly “appeared to place weight” on EMRB administration's recommendation to reject the ASP. The submission argues administration's position was it did not have authority to recommend the plan's approval because of the lack of policies in the growth plan for the expansion of a major employment area and referred the application to the board for consideration.
“As such, the administration recommendation to the board that (the county's ASP) be rejected should not have been relied upon,” the county wrote.
The submission also says multiple board members said during the debate in April that they would support the ASP if Sturgeon County could prove investment in the area was imminent, because then they would be comfortable passing the ASP without considering applicable growth plan policies.
“Imminent investment is not an appropriate consideration for approval,” the county wrote. “The (Villeneuve Airport ASP) is a long-range planning document that defines and encourages future development in the area.”
Discriminatory treatment
In the last part of the dispute filing, Sturgeon County alleges board members discriminated against the county and its proposed ASP.
It says some members of the EMRB Board voted against the ASP because it includes an expansion of the major employment area already designated near the airport; however, last year the board approved an amendment to St. Albert's Municipal Development Plan that expanded on an employment area. Sturgeon County says this amounts to differential treatment.
“St. Albert's (MDP amendment) identified a total gross developable area of 570 (hectares) of new employment area. This new employment area was not identified in the (EMRB's existing growth plan),” the submission states.
“While the addition of a new employment area was not mentioned in the context of the growth plan for either the third-party review or the administration recommendation to the board for St. Albert's (MDP amendment), it was considered to be a fundamental issue in both the third-party review and the administration recommendation to the board for (the county's ASP).”
In its own written submissions, EMRB administration noted no municipality appealed the decision to approve St. Albert's MDP amendment last year, and said the difference between the Sturgeon County's and St. Albert's expanded employment area is the city expanded a “local employment area,” while the county is looking to expand on a “major employment area.”
The difference between the two types of employment areas, according to the EMRB's definitions, is largely that major employment areas designate space for “regionally significant business and economic activities and high levels of employment,” whereas local employment areas designate space for “locally significant business and economic activities and generate a small concentration of employment for the local area.”
Sturgeon County Mayor Alanna Hnatiw and St. Albert's Mayor Cathy Heron declined the Gazette's interview requests, but both issued statements saying it would be inappropriate to comment on the situation prior to the facilitated discussion.
“Sturgeon County is approaching this facilitated discussion as a great opportunity to develop a mutually acceptable path forward for the parties involved,” Hnatiw said. “We will actively participate in the (dispute) conversation with an open mind and in good faith. We look forward to a fair review of our appeal.”
“The EMRB dispute resolution process was developed to address these types of situations,” Heron said.
“The City of St. Albert will continue to work through the EMRB as we develop our plans and communicate them to our neighbouring municipalities.”
