To TNRD Planning,
Please accept the following for submission to the September 3, 2026 meeting regarding the Application for Zoning Amendment- Lot DL 5739, Lac Le Jeune.
Since the TNRD is only sending notifications of this meeting to those properties within 150M of the ski area property, this letter represents many of those other property owners within the Ridgemont Estates that have enjoyed historical use of the ski area property but were not invited to participate in the September 3, 2026 meeting. This includes the properties on Lookout, Marmot, Ridgemont, Osprey and the north side of Pineridge.
The 1st attached map below was provided from the TNRD Sr Planner responsible for the ski hill property. It shows private land surrounding three sides of the Ridgemont Estates community, with no defined public access to crown land. This proposal is very different than the 2012 proposal (see 2nd map below of the current zoning), which defined a large area dedicated as park (area “P1”) also providing access to crown land. From my email correspondence with the TNRD Planner, the TNRD is no longer interested in having a park and is now proposing a small parcel of unusable land (defined as lot 5825 on the 1st map), again, with no access to Crown Land. Therefore, this application indicates there is no defined access to crown land for our community and nothing planned. This P1 park covers a substantial part of the property and was promised to the community as part of the 2012 rezoning but is now showing as removed by TNRD and sold as private land of which there is a “cash in lieu” defined in the proposal, however there is no indication where this “cash in lieu” is to be utilized.
Question #1: Had the previous owner who applied for the rezoning change in 2012 successfully proceeded with the development of the proposed subdivision, would the TNRD be obligated to maintain the P1 zoned area and create a community park?
Question #2: In the new proposal, there is mention of a “cash in lieu” for the removal of the P1 park lot. It appears that this “cash in lieu” is the newly defined park area (lot 5825), is this the case? If so, we would consider this to be largely insufficient. That parcel is not new as it was already defined as an area set aside for a school or church in the 2012 proposal.
Additionally, the park status of area P1 in the 2012 map is a large area and provides the community with assurance it will be maintained for forest fire mitigation, something that would be costly and unlikely to be undertaken by the new land owners. Also important to the community is to have an emergency egress in the event of a wildfire event blocking the one route out of the community. Acknowledging that considerable fire mitigation work was undertaken by the previous owners, large areas remain within the parcel that were not treated and still pose a significant fire risk to the community. Fire mitigation is not a one-and-done but rather must be assessed and maintained over years which can be costly for a private landowner. If an area is designated a park and held by either the Provincial Government or Regional District then those areas are eligible for Federal and/or Provincial grants and funding to ensure the wildfire risks are managed effectively. This is a significant concern as we are seeing wildfires becoming more volatile and mitigation efforts have proven to be effective in reducing wildfire intensity around communities such as Logan Lake in 2021.
Question #3: Could the TNRD please reflect in this application the importance of maintenance of this land for fire mitigation and consideration of an emergency egress for the community?
There are 4 main access points where the community has historically accessed crown land through these properties that surround our community. They are marked as a red “X” on the 3rd and 4th map provided below. It is important to note that the trail at the end of Lac Le Jeune Road is a long established trail called “Ridge Lake Trail” and can be found in Trailforks, All Trails, Canada Topo and other hiking apps. It is also important to note that in the 2012 application, it defined all waterfront on the proposed property side Little Lac Le Jeune lake as Crown Land, the same as it is on the east side of Lac Le Jeune road in Ridgemont Estates. In the 2012 application it also stated that the province “requires a dedication of a minimum 5% public park space”.
Question #4: The Crown Land defined in the 2012 application along the waterfront (on the north side of Little Lac Le Jeune lake) is a narrow section that no longer has a usable trail or double track to access Crown Land. Is this land available for the development of a community trail to access Crown Land beyond?
Question #5: Is there no longer the following provincial government requirement as defined in the 2012 application, “requires a dedication of a minimum 5% public park space”?
The last formal environmental assessment was conducted in 2008 by Don Holmes (used for the 2012 proposed zoning). This information is considered dated and not reflective of current environmental conditions such as recent drought and low lake levels, wildfire impacts changing climate conditions. Additionally, there is considerable water quality data since the last assessment that has been collected and is not considered in this proposal. What is understood is that a lot has changed environmentally in the last 18 years.
Question #6: Could a new formal environmental assessment be conducted to better inform the impacts of the proposed change of property use to agricultural?
The following persons who have signed this letter, have a strong interest in preserving access to Crown Land through the proposed property. It is important to note that this access has historically been enjoyed for decades dating back to when it was a ski hill operation from 1947 to 1992 (as the ski hill encouraged public access), and prior to that time. This historical access demonstrates a precedent. Additionally, this access was promised in the previous 2012 zoning changes, as a TNRD park (area P1) and is not represented in this application. Historical use sets a precedent and warrants, at the very least, an easement for access to crown land and egress.
Question #7: Why is there no accounting for the precedent setting historical public use of this land in respect to dedication of access easement or Park designation?
As you can see from this letter, we have many questions and feel that there has been insufficient or non-existent community consultation (particularly to those in the community outside of the 150M meeting invite area) regarding this proposal. We respectfully ask for an extension of time to allow for proper and appropriate community consultation.
