MD holds Public Hearing to discuss proposed location of new Beaver Mines Fire Hall

Some Beaver Mines citizens voice disapproval

Chris Davis, Pincher Creek Voice

The Municipal District of Pincher Creek Council held a Public Hearing to hear concerns arising from a proposed Land Use Bylaw Amendment (Bylaw #1220-11), which would redesignate a 4.4 acre piece of land lying west of 3rd Street in the Hamlet of Beaver Mines from
“Agricultural - A” to “Direct Control - DC” for the purpose of constructing a new Fire Hall.


The small MD Council chamber was full to capacity, with about 12 concerned citizens in attendance.  Reeve Rod Zielinski explained that the meeting was designed to give citizens a chance to speak to the issue, but was not intended to be a forum for debate. MD Development Officer Roland Milligan explained the MD's reasoning behind the redesignation to Direct Control, saying it was the only way the MD could legally sub-divide the parcel of land in question and rezone it for public use.

Four citizens who live in the immediate potentially affected area accepted Reeve Zielinski's invitation to speak formally to the subject.

David McNeill went first, reading from a letter he and his wife Linde Farley had submitted to council the day before. In it several concerns were addressed, including the change in the land use application for Direct Control, as opposed to the original plan of the MD to redesignate it to Public Institutional".  "This is sort of like a bait and switch tactic," McNeill said (and his letter reads).  "You baited us with the Public Institutional, then switched to Direct Control, and I find it unethical.  By bringing in, now, the Direct Control issue you add another dimension to the original debate, a dimension which is quite serious and needs its own discussion."

McNeill made it plain that he was opposed to Council having Direct Control, saying "my understanding of Direct Control is that it gives Council extraordinary powers over a piece of land,  it allows Council to do anything it deems appropriate without restraint from any other bylaw that otherwise would normally direct how that land would be used.  A Council should impose Direct Control, therefore, only in the direst of situations, not just because it is convenient or efficient to do so."

McNeill next addressed concerns over the size of land affected.  "In this case, 4.4 acres is way more than you need for a fire hall."  At the Wednesday, November 2 public meeting held by MD Council, also to get public feedback on the fire hall issue, it was suggested the size and location of the land in question could give the MD options in case they wanted to build a helipad, a water tower, a public walkway, and/or a public works yard, something that McNeill and every other person to speak objected to.  "Justify each of those needs before you decide you need to buy that much land, before you propose to change the land use designation, and ultimately and presumably before you buy the land."

Before concluding his remarks, McNeill averred he was in favour of a new fire hall, but was opposed to a public works yard on the proposed site.  Other issues, such as a water tower, he suggested should dealt with as separate items.

Rob Branson spoke to council next.  "My property is right across the street from there," he said.  "This process is disheartening.  To have so much uncertainty from something that impacts us is unsettling."  Branson indicated the size of the property in question was a concern for him as well.  "Everybody knows this is too much land for a fire hall." He was not opposed to a fire hall being built at the location. "We like fire halls, don't get me wrong.
"We really appreciate fire halls and firemen," he said, reiterating his position at the last public meeting on the subject.  He was, however, opposed to more than a fire hall being constructed at the site, and clearly frustrated with the uncertainty he was feeling about the possible future ramifications. "I don't need another road in front of my house," he said.  "I would not know what is between me and this fire hall."  He was concerned with the possibility of gravel and salt piles should a public works yard be also developed on the site. "Long term planning, I would like to suggest that's not the best use of this property." He also raised concerns about the possible impact on his property value.

Gary Marchuk spoke next.  He is the resident who would arguably be most affected by development of the proposed site, as his home sits right next to the property line with almost no buffer zone between it and the proposed development.  He said the size of the lot "Suggests a hidden agenda on the part of the MD."  He made it clear he was completely opposed to the fire hall or any of the other possibilities raised being constructed there.
"The present site that you've chosen is on a treed hillside," he said.  "There won't be a tree left of the hillside.  That area we love will become an industrial site."  He suggested the MD either add washrooms to the present fire hall, or build one attached to the old school located on Highway 507 east of the hamlet.  "I think you should look at providing a facility that has no impact on community."

The final citizen to speak was Dr. Tobias Gelber, who also owns property near the proposed site.  At present he lives full time in Calgary but spends weekends and "many weekdays" in Beaver Mines, where he has some hopes of retiring.  He too read from a letter he had sent to MD Council in early November.  "Despite the fact that the fire hall is proposed to be directly behind my house, I fully support the fire hall going there," he said (and his letter reads.) "I am very appreciative that council is looking for a more permanent home for a modern fire hall for this community."

Gelber echoed the concerns of others that the site might in future be used for more than a fire hall.  He suggested the MD develop a proposal for "the land that is needed for the fire hall and for the fire hall only...in that location."

Reeve Rod Zielinski is also the Councillor for MD of Pincher Creek Number 9, Division 3.  At the conclusion of the citizen presentations, and after checking the availability of those concerned and present, he indicated he would be setting up a further meeting between interested Division 3 citizens and himself in early January.