For the first time in nearly 18 years, the town of Rocky Mountain House and Clearwater County have updated their joint Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP).
The IDP aims to create better collaboration between neighbouring municipalities when it comes to such land use planning items of transportation systems and industrial uses within the IDP area.
The current IDP map encompasses the town of Rocky Mountain House and goes to the north and south outskirts of town, west past Pine Hills Golf Club, east to the Pine Grove Cemetery.
Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) boundaries. (Town of Rocky Mountain House)
Desire among both councils to update the 2007 document comes amid requests to Clearwater County for subdivision development within the IDP.
“We’ve had a few inquires, and given the current IDP, they can’t even be considered, or administration wouldn’t recommend it,” says Kim Gilham, Manager of Planning & Development for Clearwater County. “We proposed to town administration so they could be considered. Whether they get approved or not is up to both councils.”
The bylaw update changes some language allowing flexibility to allow for more subdivision within the IDP.
For example, language in the 2007 bylaw barred the premature development of agricultural land within the IDP, while the update allows for certain developments, contingent on compliance with the municipalities’ Municipal Development Plans (MDP).
The changes were supported by Clearwater County Councillor Genny Mehlhaff.
“This is a great opportunity to remove red tape that is part of development in the region,” says Mehlhaff. “It’s important that we work together with our town counterparts to create good development avenues in the IDP area.”
While saying the language around subdivisions is a good start, Mehlhaff says she would entertain a closer look at the IDP to remove even more “barriers” to development in the area.
Rocky town councillor Dale Shippelt agreed, saying the 2007 draft has a “don’t play in my sand box” approach, adding that if any serious future development is to happen in the region, increased cooperation between the two municipalities will be key.
“In 2007, there were developers, in 2024— not so much, so we really need to remove barriers,” he added.
Clearwater County Reeve Michelle Swanson said language in the 2007 bylaw was “optimistic” that growth in the IDP would go from around 7,000 residents in 2005 to 35,000 over the next 50 to 75 years, but nevertheless remained hopeful that growth can continue in the region.
Both councils heard a more fulsome review is a priority for the next year.
You can read the amendments to to the IDP bylaw here.
–
RELATED
- Grassroots organization voices concern over proposed Clearwater County Land Use Bylaw
- “The clock’s ticking” Clearwater County requests eleventh-hour review of Caroline solar farm project
–
Comments