Windsor Area Structure Plan

I am requesting that the Windsor Area Structure Plan publish a site-specific wildlife and wetland review addressing swan habitat in and around the ASP lands.

The County’s own project page states that the Windsor ASP covers approximately 388 hectares between Range Road 62 and Range Road 63, south of Highway 43 to the City of Grande Prairie boundary, and that the plan will guide future land use, roads, water, sewer, stormwater, parks, trails, and other infrastructure. That scale of development is significant, especially where swans are known or observed in the surrounding area.

Trumpeter Swans are not ordinary incidental wildlife in Alberta planning. Alberta lists the Trumpeter Swan as **Sensitive** and as a **Species of Special Concern**. Alberta’s operating standards for known or identified Trumpeter Swan waterbodies and watercourses state that no activities are to occur within **500 metres** of the bed and shore, and that between **April 1 and September 30**, no activities are to occur within **800 metres** of the bed and shore of a known or identified Trumpeter Swan watercourse or waterbody.

Federal law also protects migratory birds, eggs, and nests. The Migratory Birds Regulations, 2022 prohibit capturing, killing, injuring, or harassing migratory birds, disturbing or destroying eggs, and damaging, destroying, removing, or disturbing nests unless properly authorized.

For that reason, the ASP should be revised to include clear environmental constraints before adoption. At minimum, the County should:

1. Identify and map all wetlands, waterbodies, watercourses, drainage features, stormwater facilities, and known/observed swan-use areas within and adjacent to the ASP boundary.

2. Confirm whether any proposed residential, commercial, industrial, road, trail, school, stormwater, or recreation development falls within 500 metres or 800 metres of known or identified Trumpeter Swan habitat.

3. Add enforceable development setbacks and restricted activity periods into the ASP itself, not leave them to later subdivision or development-permit review.

4. Require a qualified wildlife biologist and wetland professional assessment before any clearing, grading, stripping, road work, stormwater construction, or trail construction occurs near swan habitat.

5. Preserve wetlands, treed buffers, riparian areas, and quiet habitat areas as Environmental Reserve or conservation lands where they support swan use or wetland function.

6. Prohibit construction disturbance within applicable Trumpeter Swan buffers during the April 1 to September 30 sensitive period unless the appropriate regulator has reviewed and approved a site-specific mitigation plan.

The County should not approve a statutory plan that creates future development expectations before confirming whether the proposed land uses conflict with swan habitat, wetland protection requirements, or migratory bird protections. This should be addressed now, at the ASP stage, because once roads, density, stormwater facilities, trails, and land-use patterns are approved, meaningful avoidance becomes much harder.

I support responsible planning, but the Windsor ASP should be revised to clearly demonstrate that swan habitat, wetlands, and migratory bird protections have been considered and incorporated into the development framework.

Sources:
County of Grande Prairie — Windsor Area Structure Plan:
[https://engagecountygp.ca/windsor-area-structure-plan](https://engagecountygp.ca/windsor-area-structure-plan)

Alberta Wild Species Status Search — Trumpeter Swan status:
[https://www.alberta.ca/lookup/wild-species-status-search.aspx](https://www.alberta.ca/lookup/wild-species-status-search.aspx)

Alberta Energy Regulator — OSE Standard Condition Template, Trumpeter Swan conditions 1950-AS and 1951-AS:
[https://www.aer.ca/media/18733/download](https://www.aer.ca/media/18733/download)

Government of Canada — Migratory Birds Regulations, 2022, section 5:
[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2022-105/section-5.html](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2022-105/section-5.html)

Government of Alberta — Alberta Wetland Policy implementation:
[https://www.alberta.ca/alberta-wetland-policy-implementation](https://www.alberta.ca/alberta-wetland-policy-implementation)

I think this is perfect for grande prairie and Clairmont this will bring in my people and business

​Let’s be entirely clear: the proposed Windsor Area Structure Plan is a blatant, ill-conceived attempt to maximize high-density tax revenue at the direct expense of the residents who actually built, paid for, and live in this community.
​We did not invest our hard-earned capital into this specific area of Clairmont to look out our windows at compressed, cookie-cutter medium-density housing, commercial strip malls, and industrial backlots. We invested here for large yards, space, privacy, and peace and quiet. This predatory plan completely suffocates and destroys the exact lifestyle we bought into.
​I am registering my total and uncompromising opposition to this bylaw based on the following failures:

​1. Decimating Property Values and High-End Appeal
​Our neighborhood is defined by premium, low-density properties with actual space. Shoving a high-density urban grid right next to us ruins the market standard. This plan compromises our property values by transforming a premium rural-residential pocket into a congested, sprawling suburb.

​2. Obliterating Peace and Quiet
​The inclusion of industrial and commercial zoning on the north and west borders is a massive middle finger to local homeowners. This council expects us to quietly accept the introduction of semi-truck traffic, light pollution, commercial garbage bins, and localized noise. We bought here to escape the noise of the city, not to have the County deliberately zone it into our backyards.

​3. Traffic Chaos and Infrastructure Failure
​Your development concept map shows an absurdly dense web of roads feeding onto Range Road 63, 116 St, and 162 Ave. Packing hundreds of medium-density units, retail spaces, and school zones into 1,280 acres will turn our local roads into a high-volume bottleneck. Our current infrastructure cannot handle this influx, and the safety of our rural roads will be completely compromised.

​4. Total Incompatibility with Existing Residents
​This plan makes zero effort to transition or blend into the existing community. It simply drops a concrete, high-density blueprint right over our heads. Industrial and high-density residential properties do not belong mixed into an area that has established its identity around quiet, premium acreage-style living.
​
​The County’s job is to protect and serve its existing taxpayers, not to act as a clearinghouse for aggressive developers looking to squeeze the maximum number of roofs onto a piece of land.
​I demand that Council reject Bylaw #3276 in its entirety.
​If the County insists on developing this land, the entire concept must be scrapped and rewritten from scratch to enforce strictly low-density housing, large estate-style lots, and massive green-space buffers that actually respect the existing neighborhood. We will not sit back and watch our peace and quiet be sacrificed for a short-sighted tax grab.

This would ruin the neighbourhood

After reviewing both the Windsor Area Structure Plan and the “What We Heard” report, I remain opposed to the Plan in its current form.

The report clearly shows that residents raised concerns about medium-density housing, increased traffic on Range Road 62, the proposed flyover, school locations, and construction impacts affecting the Westlake and Whispering Ridge area. However, the final Plan appears to remain largely unchanged.

It is difficult to see how public feedback meaningfully influenced the development concept. The process appears to have focused more on explaining the Plan than modifying it in response to resident concerns.

I support responsible growth, but growth should be orderly, compatible with existing neighbourhoods, and responsive to public input. The current Plan lacks sufficient transition policies, meaningful phasing requirements, and protections for established communities.

I encourage the County to revise the Plan before Council approval and clearly demonstrate how resident feedback has been incorporated into the final development framework.

I truly hope this doesnt go through. We specifically chose this neighborhood for its density and how quiet it is. Having this new development will increase the density of this neighborhood dramatically. Not only that, why are you putting cheap housing in a neighborhood like this. This neighborhood is known for being a high value neighborhood. This will bring the value of our houses down. There are so many other areas with open lots. Far away from here. Build there! Stay away from our neighborhood!

I read through the development plan for the Windsor area and I’m absolutely disgusted. I bought in Whispering Ridge to live in a quiet neighbourhood that was not full of high density, housing, traffic, noise, high density, traffic, and all the chaos at this plan will bring.
Most concerning is the transition and wideng of 62 to a flyover into the Clairmont area. This will just become a major commuter and business route to the south into GP also with people turning into whispering Ridge and Westlake to get access to the east side half hour quiet subdivisions.
I did not buy here to live in a community adjacent to major traffic routes and shopping areas.

We disagree the proposed plan , we moved here a year ago because we like the space county offered and proposed project we have in whispering ridge and west lake , please stop the plan and review and make another subdivision just like whispering and make better park for year around walks with flat walk ways so easy to maintain in snowy days.

A simple no. The draw for us to this neighborhood was the small town know your neighbor feel. We’d like to keep it that way! This plan will bring more noise, more traffic, and potentially more crime. Whispering Ridge and Westlake are highly desirable neighborhoods for a reason.

We purchased a home in the county to remove ourselves from the congestion, crime, traffic and problems of the city. Adding this much high density housing brings all those problems to the county. It’s time the county considers their residents comments and stops thinking how many more tax payers can we cram into an area. Adding a flyover on RR 62 is going to make the road a busy truck route not in favour.

High density housing will ultimately reduce property values reducing tax revenue

This is absolutely horrible and will be devastating to the entire neighborhood. My family absolutely opposes these plans to build high density homes and apartments right next to us.

We disagree strongly will the proposed plan. We built our home last year in the area because it was a higher value area and not a cramped multi family area.

I do not agree the Windsor Area should proceed being developed as it is currently proposed. Whispering Ridge has been a great place to raise a family with peace and quiet. Building this high density subdivision will take away a lot of the good things that Whispering Ridge has to offer.

What a way to ruin our neighborhood!

This completely defeats the purpose of living in the area, we are currently building in Whispering Ridge and would not have done so knowing this development was being planned.

We are strongly against the idea of adding this many residents to the area and the traffic/noise that would come with it.

The reason why people want to live out here is the space, freedom and quality of home. We don’t need more as this will reduce the price of our homes due to supply. This isn’t helpful for our community

This is an awful idea. We are currently buying a home in this area and had no idea this was a proposed idea, if we had known it would have highly swayed our decision to buy a home in this community. We chose this community for the safety and quietness it exhibited. This plan will disrupt just that. Extremely disappointed in this plan and I believe it should be reconsidered.

We chose to live in county for the space, being surrounded by trees and farmland. We did not want to surrounded by high density apartments and housing. We are very much against this Area Structure Plan in is current form.

I am a whispering ridge resident and local realtor of 12 years and I strongly oppose the window structure plan , this will be detrimental to all home owners property values, peace of living, and the whole reason we all chose to live and buy in this area. This is nothing more than an attempt to make a quick dollar - I say NO to medium and high density homes, No to apartments , no townhomes , no duplex's . No lane homes. No! No! No!