Not Farmland – huge sandstone slabs

/in /by

The sandstone slabs on this post all came from an area measuring 40′ X 80′ on my land, they were 3 to 6″ from the surface of the soil.  Slabs like this run throughout the land.  Some are at the surface, and some just below.  The only way they could be moved was with a large track hoe.  It may be difficult to get a perspective on size.  The ones standing upright – like the first two photos are half-buried in the ground to stabilize them.

 

This is my center island there are 5 slabs in this pile.  The one in the front left measures 4′ by 5′ by 8″ thick ABOVE ground.  Half of this slab is buried below ground to stabilize it.  The one on top is 4′ by 3′. also 8″ thick. The one on the top left measures about 8′ by 4′.

Also in the center island.  This is a small one measuring about 4.5′ wide.  It is 7′ long but half of it is buried to stabilize it.

The sandstone boulder sits at the entrance to my yard and came from the same source as those above.  It measures 4′ x 4′ overall and is about 3′ thick.

These are relatively small. the bottom measuring 3′ by 1.5′ and 1.5 by 1.75.  Same source.  These boulders run throughout the land making it impossible to farm or it wrecks the machinery.

AEP & Ground Water (well) Registration

/in /by

Now deep into the registration process – the application was made almost 3 years ago – we are finalizing the process.  AEP wanted an updated Q20 – consisting of 48 hours of pumping and 48 hours of recovery.

“A 48-hour pumping test was conducted on Chinook Ridge’s supply well (GIC ID 2090656) from September 15 – 19, 2020 by personnel from Wild Rose Water Wells. Water levels were measured in Chinook Ridge’s supply well, two observation wells on Chinook Ridge property, one well on Jim Davies’ property and one well on Karen Singer’s property.”

The results were that the Singer well is not connected to the Chinook Ridge well.  The Davies well may or may not be connected as the pump test results showed no correlation in drawdown.  The full report can be viewed under the ‘2020 Water Rpt‘ tab on this website.

“Substituting in the above values a 20-year safe yield (020) of 135.4 m3/day (20.6 imperial gallons per minute or 49,455 m3/year) is calculated. The analysis indicates the well is capable of supplying water at a rate of 20.6 igpm, which is greater than the tested rate of 12.0 igpm. The safe yield for the well is nearly double the license application volume of 26,982 m3/year, allowing for potential growth in water demand at a later date.“

SUCCESSFUL – Land Use Redesignation Hearing – Bylaw C-7188-2012

/in , /by

On November 6, 2012, RVC Council passed Bylaw in a 7/2 vote redesignating the land to Business, Leisure & Recreation (B, L & R) for the purpose of building an 18-hole golf course, a 21 room hotel with a banquet hall for 500, 15 RV Stalls, and 15 campsites (with spa, spike room, etc).  Here are Council’s comments:

And the Bylaw Passed!

 

Audio of the 2012 Land Re-designation Hearing

/in /by

This is only for those that missed the 2012 Hearing and have questions about how Rocky View County Council made the Decision to create Bylaw C-7188-2012, what opposition was heard and what aspects were considered.  It is in 4 parts due to size limitations on uploads.

Original NOTICES from Rocky View Weekly

/in /by

I am in the process of having the original 2012 Land Re-designation Hearing audio tapes copied to clear uploadable files and will post them here when available. The opening remarks by RVC Planner Rick Michelinko clearly indicate that the application was to construct an 18-hole golf course, a 21 room hotel with a banquet hall to seat up to 500, 15 campsites, and 15 RV stalls. (spas and spike bar in the lower level were also included but not specified).

This application was SUCCESSFUL and passed by RVC Council on a 7 to 2 vote in favor of the Bylaw changing the land use to Business, Leisure & Recreation use.

 

Then the subsequent Development Permit for the identical purpose as the redesignation.  Unfortunately, RVC staff was less clear in the wording.

Unfortunately, I let this Development Permit lapse for personal reasons related to my spousal relationship but soon followed by the dire need of one of my foster kids who got into a whole mess of trouble.

When I resumed the idea of developing I changed the proposal and increased the number of RV Stalls to 81 and the design and location of the building.  I wanted a ‘different’ style of building as the Mountain View Heritage Center is a refurbished barn so I chose a Castle design to be unique.  The new location offered more privacy visually; the trees and lower elevation would help buffer both sight and sound and was in response to neighbor concerns about the potential for impaired drivers.  This way there would be no reason to leave impaired.

The Beginning – Water’s Chemical Analysis

/in /by

Chemical Analysis on well water is NOT conclusive proof that wells are not connected
BUT if the analysis on the wells is all the same
THEN it is likely they are connected and drawing from the same aquifer.
It is a starting point to see if the next step should be taken.

The above results show that it is very unlikely the wells are connected and I should proceed to the next step.

 

 

Technical Studies – BIA, TIA, EIA and Soils

/in , /by

The Biophysical Impact Assessment, Traffic Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment, and the Soils Assessment were all completed by Stantec (as was the original Ground Water evaluation) in November of 2011.  These are on the main website under the ‘Technical Reports’ tab.

Since then the Ground Water evaluation and the Traffic Impact Assessment were updated in late 2020. The new Water evaluation is under the ‘2020 Water Rpt’ tab.