Some MD of Foothills landowners are scratching their heads over the proposed annexation boundary.
The annexation boundary was approved by MD of Foothills and the Town of Okotoks councils in April after almost two years of negotiations. The north boundary of Okotoks runs along 322 Ave.
Bonny Osland said the proposed boundary will cut off her property, as well two neighbours the Balagans and Lochers. Osland said it will create an island of three landowners between Highway 2 and what is slated to become urban industrial-commercial land at the northeast edge of the annexation area.
“They’re going to leave this tiny little triangle piece of country residential backed up against all this commercial industrial,” said Osland. “It only makes good sense for them to include that 16-plus acres, which is great highway front, into the proposed annexation.”
Osland and her two neighbours have approached the Town of Okotoks and the MD of Foothills during public open houses, public hearings and meetings over the past year, but she said they feel their concerns have fallen on deaf ears.
Their last course of action is to appeal to the Municipal Government Board (MGB) during an annexation hearing on Oct. 12. The hearing begins at 10 a.m. at the Foothills Centennial Centre and is the next step in finalizing the annexation.
The main concerns Osland and her neighbours have are lifestyle changes and property depreciation.
“Our property value is going to be crushed,” said Osland. “We’ll be right up against commercial industrial property on one side and a highway on the other.”
Losing the value of her land is a devastating prospect. When Osland bought the property 20 years ago she named it “Briezy Meadows” after her daughter, and has always intended to pass it along to her one day.
“It’s not just a tangible product to me, it’s my land, my home and my lifestyle,” said Osland. “Down the road I would love to be able to leave this place to (my daughter) and have something tangible to leave her, and not just some little scrap yard they’ve depreciated.”
She said being included in the annexation would give her and her neighbours options. They would be able to develop businesses, be part of the Town of Okotoks and have amenities and infrastructure like paved roads.
She said their taxes would go up, but it would be worth it to retain the value of their properties.
Osland said she hopes the board hears their concerns and makes a fair decision.
“I’m hoping we can still be salvaged by the Municipal Government Board, if they could consider the impact this annexation is going to have,” said Osland. “They don’t realize the impact they’re affecting.”
She said her greatest fear is to be left out of the annexation and be pushed out of her property to escape the commercial industrial development happening next door, or to live on a piece of land she can’t do anything with in the future.
“If I sold the place I would probably regret it. I’d regret it,” said Osland. “It’s my home. I don’t even know what that would look like for me. I’ve been there for 20 years.”
According to an annexation area analysis completed by the Town in July 2015, Osland and her neighbours are one of four groups requesting to be part of the annexation agreement.
The study states the 15.6-acre area where Osland lives poses developmental challenges due to its natural slope and water bodies. The land includes about 4.8 acres of pond.
“Lands are heavily constrained by both soil stability issues and wetlands/drainage features, which together account for roughly half of the total study area,” the report reads.
Servicing the lands would also require a substantial investment to connect to existing infrastructure, according to the study. It states the water, stability and infrastructure challenges mean the land has limited suitability for future commercial, industrial or residential development.
The report also indicates including the triangle-shaped area of land where Osland lives, referred to as “Area 2,” would also create an odd town boundary.
“The addition of Area 2 would result in an irregular municipal boundary, a condition not preferred by the Government of Alberta when considering annexation applications.”
