Town of Raymond special council meeting from June 17

Posted on July 18, 2025 by admin

By Heather Cameron
Southern Alberta Newspapers
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

On June 17, Raymond Town Council held a Special Council Meeting to address Bylaws No. 1151-25 and 1154-25.

The meeting began with Councillor Evans making the motion to move into the public hearing and the motion was carried. Following the motion, Town of Raymond Development Officer Tyler Nelson explained to Council and members of the public in attendance that Bylaw No. 1154-25 is a bylaw to amend the Municipal Development Plan for the property that totals approximately 0.432 hectares, or 1.07 acres, to allow for future development.

“The MDP specifies this area as Public and institutional, which doesn’t quite match our current land use,” said Nelson. “What we’re looking to do is we’re looking to change the MDP to show this as future residential or current residential for this section.”

Nelson specified that the Town is not looking at changing further specifications on zoning, just the already mentioned one acre section that would be considered in consideration for six lots, and the ball diamonds will also remain unmodified.

According to Town of Raymond Community Services Director Hugh Simpson, who was asked to speak to future plans as far as parks and rec in the area went, the six lots will encompass about 1.07 acres. Town of Raymond Operational Services Director Jesse Salmon also stated that he did not have any concerns with the existing infrastructure, but if concerns arise, they will be addressed in a ‘timely fashion.’ Salmon also shared that a loop with potable water will be closed this year, and 50 West will be tied in with the high school project, which should aid with water supply in that area. Plus, Salmon stated that there is a proposal in the works to redo all the existing asphalt and curbs and sidewalk, which will definitely improve surface drainage in that area. 

Bonnie Brunner, planning advisor for the Town of Raymond and Senior Planner with ORRSC, then briefly touched upon the re-designation criteria, stating that in the Land Use Bylaw, when Council is considering re-designation, things to keep in mind include compliance with the applicable standards and provisions of the Land Use Bylaw. 

“In this circumstance, the proposed subdivision would comply with all those residential standards, so it wouldn’t be creating a situation of non-conformity with the Land Use Bylaw consistency with the Municipal Development Plan,” said Brunner. “And in this case, there’s a concurrent consideration for amendment of the MDP for consistency with the proposed rezone compatibility with adjacent uses, as surrounding uses include residential and parks and space. So certainly, residential is in keeping with surrounding land uses the development potential and suitability of the site. Those have been already addressed with Public Works’s availability of facilities and services with respect to sewage disposal, domestic water, gas, electricity, and police and fire protection.”

The public was then invited to give their thoughts on the proposed bylaws.

Eva Streibel first spoke on the importance of mental health in children, as she was concerned about the impact the potential development could have on children’s wellness. 

“It’s important that we have so many wonderful, fabulous facilities in Raymond, but what’s also important is unstructured open play where children can just play,” said Streibel. “It would be such a shame to lose that space for our community where we get to just be and not have any other restrictions. I don’t believe that it’s just going to be six houses. Once you rezone that land from park to residential, it’s going to expand. That whole area of Victoria Park was donated to the town as a park. Three quarters of it is gone now. It’s not open anymore. Why do we want to fill every single space that’s green with something? Why can’t it just be open space? We need that for our mental health. We need to be able to look out the window and see nature, not somebody else’s house, not another football field, not another baseball field. We have all of those things and they’re wonderful, but we also need space to just be outside and for people that can’t afford to go use some of these facilities. Without that we deny people who have less. We deny them that opportunity to have that free and open space. I would really ask you to please not rezone this land. It needs to stay as park land. It’s important for our community.”

Resident Vicky Brown then expressed concerns that the town would eventually run out of green space and would also lose important things in the process of losing green space.

“Every day, it just feels like we’re being taken from, and not replaced or given back to,” said Brown. “If we keep taking that away, what is everybody going to be left with? Maybe green space should be part of the town’s consideration and not just more houses.”

A resident named Sherry also expressed that it would be nice if the currently available green spaces could be spruced up with amenities like camp kitchens, and also wondered if there would be regrets in using all available green space years down the road. 

Doug Streibel spoke about how the residents of Raymond do not want a city situation, and that the town needs places like green spaces where children can just play.

Resident Cheryl Chase also shared her anxieties about how there is not a lot of green space left in Raymond, and that all the new construction would only give her more anxiety to have to deal with to the point where she might have to relocate. 

Resident Wyatt Cook spoke about how the town needs to find a way to build some economical lots for single family homes, as there is a lot of infill that could be done and brings jobs and young families to the town.

Irina Allred then spoke about how the town is in danger of losing what they have and how she is scared to lose the green space. 

Others offered their concerns about how the residents of Raymond take pride in what they have, including the green spaces, and once it is taken away, it will be gone forever. A motion was then made to close the public hearing and the motion was carried.

Following the comments, Council brought attention back to the standing motion that Bylaw No. 1154-25: MDP Amendment be given second reading. The motion was carried. A motion was then made that Bylaw No. 1154-25: MDP Amendment be given third reading. The motion was carried.

Then, a motion was made to give second reading to Bylaw No. 1151-25, a bylaw meant to redesignate the following lands described as the West Portion of Lot 7, Block A, Plan 2312289, which totals approximately 0.432 hectares, or 1.07 acres, from “Parks and Open Space – POS-1” to “General Residential – R-1.’ The motion was carried. Finally, a motion was made that Bylaw No. 1151-25, a bylaw meant to redesignate the following lands described as the West Portion of Lot 7, Block A, Plan 2312289 be given third reading and the motion was carried.