09.16 The MDP Amendments
This Week at Council: What’s Happening with Rocky View’s MDP
This week, Rocky View County Council debated a number of proposed changes to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP). If you haven't been following closely, it's worth paying attention — many of these amendments could have long-term impacts on agriculture, rural communities, and how our land is used.
Unlike the previous two public hearings on the MDP, this week was all about debate and voting — not public input.
The MDP is the County’s long-term roadmap for managing growth, land use, and infrastructure. It’s meant to guide development in a way that reflects community values, protects agricultural land, and supports sustainable, well-planned growth.
Only Councillors Wright and Hanson brought forward any proposed amendments — which begs the question: How can we meaningfully protect against sprawl or land fragmentation if no one is advocating for it at the council table?
It’s also worth noting that Reeve Kissel was absent for the first MDP public hearing on July 10th, which meant she was required to recuse herself from all further discussion and voting on the MDP. That left only six councillors voting on amendments — and any tie vote (3–3) meant the proposed amendment was automatically defeated. Would the outcome have been different had she been part of the process from the beginning? It’s hard to say — but certainly worth thinking about.
Amendments Overview
There were 52 proposed amendments:
22 Minor – small wording changes that didn’t alter intent
11 Major – added or removed entire policies or significantly changed them
13 Clarification – refined or reworded policies for clarity
Let’s Talk About the Minor Amendments
Council grouped most minor amendments into an omnibus motion — approving them in one vote — but pulled out a few for individual discussion:
1(b), 1(d), 1(f), 1(o), and 1(s).
1(d) – Development Near Business Hubs
This proposed amendment would have added wording to prevent business development applications just outside of designated Business Hubs or Employment Areas.
Seems like a good idea, right? If you’re going to designate specific areas for commercial activity, development should happen within those boundaries — not just next door.
But Council voted not to support this addition. That’s a concern. Without this policy, we’re inviting leapfrog development — where business activity jumps beyond intended zones, driving up land prices, fragmenting agricultural parcels, and placing more pressure on rural infrastructure. This kind of creeping expansion weakens the purpose of the hubs in the first place. In my view, not supporting this amendment was a missed opportunity.
1(o) – Fiscal Impact Analysis for New Development
This one called for requiring a fiscal impact analysis as part of Area Structure Plan (ASP) applications — basically, having the County evaluate what a new development will cost in terms of infrastructure (roads, water, fire protection) versus how much revenue it will generate.
Honestly, this should be standard practice. It’s not about being anti-development — it’s about making informed, responsible decisions. Without a clear understanding of long-term costs, residents could be left footing the bill down the line.
Deputy Reeve Kochan said, “I’m not sure why we would need this,” — which was surprising given the ongoing concerns about developments like Bingham Crossing, where infrastructure and traffic issues are already stacking up.
Major Amendments: The Big Conversations
This is where Council had the chance to make meaningful changes — to reinforce policy that protects agriculture, manages growth responsibly, and keeps our rural areas intact.
The most significant debates (in my opinion) came from Motions 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 — mostly brought forward by Councillor Wright, who showed strong leadership in trying to strengthen the MDP.
Motion 4 – Remove Highway Business Hubs
This amendment proposed removing broad language around Highway Business Hubs from the MDP.
On paper, these hubs sound useful — spots where highway travellers can stop and access services. But without strong limitations, this policy could lead to significant commercial development along major corridors like Highway 22, Range Road 33, and Jumping Pound Road. Instead of supporting agricultural operations, we risk seeing hotels, gas stations, and fast-food restaurants popping up across rural landscapes. It’s basically putting an "Open for Business” sign on the land that makes our home special. Many residents came to the public hearings to speak with concern about these policies and remove this carte blanch approach in the MDP.
Many residents spoke at public hearings about their concerns with these policies. Councillor Hanson flagged the Province’s hesitation to provide access along these roads. Councillor Wright asked a fair question: “If you can bring forward an ASP (Area Structure Plan), why do we need policies that allow for anything, everywhere?”
Despite these concerns, the amendment to remove the hubs was defeated 3–3. A revised version, which focuses the hubs more narrowly on serving highway travellers, was passed — but we’re still left with open-ended policies that could result in commercial sprawl where it's not needed, and where infrastructure can't support it.
It’s worth asking: is this the best use of our limited agricultural land?
Watch this discussion at the September 16 council meeting — timestamp 2:29:25 shows a concerning moment where debate was nearly shut down. Council Meeting - September 16, 2025
Motion 6 – Remove Policy 11.14 (Culture, Tourism, Hospitality in Ag Areas)
Policy 11.14 was added by Administration late in the process, after public engagement had ended. It allows non-agricultural tourism and hospitality uses in Ag General zones — things like event centres or accommodations that don’t have a strong link to farming.
The amendment proposed removing the policy to allow more time for community consultation — a fair and transparent ask. Yet the amendment failed in another 3–3 vote.
What’s frustrating is that the agricultural community has been vocal in its opposition to this policy — every person who spoke at the hearings against it came from the ag sector. Yet the narrative pushed forward was that “the ag community wants this.”
How can that be the case when the policy was added after engagement ended?
Motion 7 – Second Farmstead Out Policy
Our MDP now allows for each parcel in Ag Gen to have three titles, two residential lots and a remainder. While councillors who were proponents of this cited flexibility for landowners, what it actually does is increase fragmentation of ag land. The agricultural community has been clear: protecting contiguous farmland is key to long-term food security and rural sustainability, and this was expressed at both public hearings by numerous ag producers.
Removing this policy would have been a step toward preserving the integrity of Rocky View’s agricultural areas. As the policy stands now it fuels speculation, raises land values, and puts more pressure on farmers who are trying to grow their operations or pass land on to the next generation — but Council chose to keep, defeating the amendment in another 3–3 tie.
Motion 9 – Clarify Agritourism
This amendment aimed to tighten the definition of agritourism — to make sure it actually reflects agricultural activity and not just a catch-all for general tourism.
Unfortunately, the stronger definition didn’t pass. So now we’re left with vague language that could open the door for non-agricultural businesses to be approved under the guise of agritourism.
Again — it's not about opposing tourism, it’s about keeping ag land focused on agriculture.
Final Thoughts
Rocky View is at a turning point. Growth is happening — and that’s not a bad thing. However, the how and where of that growth is critical.
The MDP will shape what kind of development is encouraged, how agricultural land is treated, and whether or not we maintain the rural identity many of us value.
If we’re not careful, we’ll end up with fragmented farmland, rising land costs, and sprawl that makes our communities harder to serve and sustain.
If you care about agriculture, smart planning, and long-term community health — now’s the time to speak up.
To read more about the MDP visit: Municipal Development Plan | Your View
