County of Barrhead council knows it has a problem.
A large percentage of Thunder Lake residents bordering the county’s municipal public reserve lands are using either deliberately or inadvertently as an extension of the land as their own property.
That is what county manager Debbie Oyarzun told councillors during their June 4 meeting.
Municipal public reserve land is a 30-metre strip of land surrounding the lake which purpose is to provide a buffer between residential property and sensitive ecological areas.
“Since I came here [fall 2016] we have had various complaints about the municipal public reserve and people restricting public access. There is a lot of misinformation when a property is passed down from landowner to landowner or even from realtors, about whose property [municipal public reserve] it is,” she said.
Oyarzun said in an effort to clarify the situation the county sent out an informational brochure to Thunder Lake residents.
This year, on May 28, county staff, armed with a peace officer, took the extra step to tour its municipal reserve land with the intention of red tagging anything that shouldn’t be there.
And what she found surprised her. Although Oyarzun said she expected to find residents who were in violation of Bylaw 50-85, aka the Public Reserves Bylaw, she did not expect the number of violations they encountered.
In an hour-long slide show, Oyarzun showed examples of property owners who violated the bylaw, with infractions as simple as having temporary items, such as lawn chairs and swings, to larger violations such as constructing permanent structures, such as boathouses, pumping water out of the lake, and adding or removing vegetation.
She noted the county has marked its municipal public reserve lands with signage but admitted in some areas it isn’t always clear, as some of the signs have been obscured by overgrowth.
“One of the tasks that is in front of us is making sure signage is in proper locations so that people know where and what it is and how it is accessible,” Oyarzun said.
Councilor and Thunder Lake resident Bill Lane said signs marking the reserve lands aren’t always accurate, noting people have been known to move them.
Coun. Walter Preugschas added that most people should have no excuse knowing where the borders of their property are and noted that an exact definition for their property would be required before receiving any financing.
Oyarzun agreed, noting it was a property owner’s responsibility to know their property’s borders, but it seemed people don’t understand the information in their real property report (RPR). An RPR is a legal document prepared by an Alberta Land Surveyor that illustrates property boundaries and improvements (structures) relative to the boundaries.
“Is that our responsibility? No, because we aren’t involved in the buying and selling of the properties, but at the same time we can do some education and awareness,” she said.
Lane noted the situation goes back to the late 1950s when many of the families first built structures on the lake.
“When I first got on council I was told that any boathouse that was there was grandfathered, and if it burnt or fell down they couldn’t replace it,” he said.
Reeve Doug Drozd, interjected if property owners had any expectations of having their structures grandfathered.
“It depends what landowner you talk to,” Oyarzun said, noting she talked to a handful of owners who said they had been grandfathered but noted they had no documentation to back up their claim.
Coun. Darrell Troock said the grandfathering argument held little water in his books.
“Grandfathering doesn’t mean forever. For me anything over 25 years is done because the value of the building is zero,” he said. “And that is only for permitted buildings. I would guess that most of these are unpermitted because they are not on proper land.”
Oyarzun agreed, she said although they still had to work with some of the property owners to see if the county had signed off on whatever “improvements” they had made on the municipal public reserve lands, the vast majority did so without permission.
However, she added most of the violations didn’t involve the building of boathouses, but rather other improvements such as fire pits, walls, gardens, sheds, cutting down trees to improve the view or using the municipal public reserve lands for extra storage, most notably for firewood and junk as well as abandoned items.
Oyarzun said the addition of unapproved vegetation could introduce invasive species which could negatively impact the ecosystem.
The other issue staff found was evidence that residents had been driving off-highway vehicles (OHV) on municipal public reserve lands which is forbidden.
Drozd noted that OHVs could lead to land erosion as well as fuel and other contaminants leaking into the water system.
Preugschas asked about docks in the lake.
Oyarzun said docks are a provincial jurisdiction.
“Because it is a municipal reserve the upland landowner is allowed to put in a single temporary dock,” she said, noting they are the only upland landowner. “Yet we have multiple temporary docks along the waterfront, but whether or not they are approved is up to them [province].”
The other issue the county has to be aware of that is because it is municipal land Oyarzun said they could potentially be held liable for accidents caused by poorly maintained or not built to code, regardless of whether they approved them.
“If anyone came down these stairs on to this deck and it collapsed who would be liable,” she asked, referring to a picture. “Part of it is bed to shore, while some of it is on municipal public reserve, does that mean the province and the county would be liable? That is something we need an answer to.”
Troock said, in many of the examples, he didn’t have a problem with people clearing trees and other vegetation and making improvements such as manicured areas, decks, or seating areas.
“For me not to have a nice frontage on the water, you might as well stay in town,” he said. “I know it isn’t permitted and legal, but in reality, it is a lot nicer than looking at a bunch of bullrushes and I’m not sure they have proved that bullrushes are any healthier for the lake.”
Troock added in many cases if the landowner was forced to remove the improvements, the value of their property decrease significantly.
“If you don’t have a view of the lake, what was a $1 million house just dropped to $300,000 in a heartbeat and that’s revenue for everyone,” he said.
Development officer Jenny Bruns said legally they can’t remove the reserve designation and prohibit public access, noting there are still ways to improve the value to residents and the public.
Oyarzun interjected saying resident’s property value might increase due to the improvements.
“But they are not taxed on the reserve land, yet are getting the benefit of the extra property,” she said but added staff need to compile more information so council could make an informed decision.
Most notably she said, county staff, need to cross-check any perceived violations to see if they were approved.
Once that is done, staff will condense the information into a report categorizing the types and number of non-compliant issues as well as any challenges to public access.
Drozd asked if she is considering to include the report in the overall process of coming up with a lake management plan that would include public consultation with area residents.
She said yes.
“It would be a facilitated discussion and when we get that information, we then either align it with our bylaw but we also have to consider what the implications there are with the provincial legislation, but in the end, we could make changes if we need to, that includes both education and enforcement,” Oyarzun said.
