The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-03-08 Council MinutesKNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTES March 8, 2000 A meeting of the Kneehill County Council was held on Wednesday March 8 2000 commencing at 8 30 A.M The following were present at the meeting Jennifer Deak Chief Administrative Officer Lonnie McCook Assistant Commissioner Otto Hoff Chairperson & Reeve Marylea Lowen Council Member Rick Vickery Council Member Glen Wagstaff Council Member Jim Hanger Council Member Marg Vetter Council Member John Rusling Planner Barb Reimer Development Officer Barb Reimer Recorded the minutes Otto Hoff called the meeting to order at 8 35 a.m SUBDIVISIONS This meeting was a continuation of the agenda from the January 12, 2000 meeting Mr Rusling gave an overview of some of the discussion from the January 12 meeting Ms Deak read the following recommendations from the January 12 2000 meeting Mr Hanger entered the meeting at 8 42 a.m 1 A maximum of one subdivision per quarter, with the acreage being kept as small as possible along with recognizing the natural lay of the land 2 The Bylaw should have stronger statements if there is not an existing developed site or if the subdivision request is located on prime agricultural land 3. A notice be put on title respecting the protection of agricultural operations regarding the noise, dust, and odor produced by an agricultural operation Mr Rusling will obtain a legal opinion on this recommendation 4 Sewer and water must be contained within the subdivision Other issues brought under consideration in January were no dividing of land for life estates keeping subdivision under 3 acres unless it s an established homestead or cutoff, and no 80 acre parcels Mr Rusling, after seeking legal council, explained that we cannot caveat a title for the Right to Farm because we have no interest in the land Ms Deak also read the recommendation that an area structure plan designation shall be necessary for new Country Residential subdivisions Another concern raised was current seeming inconsistency with the number of houses allowed on a quarter if used for farm purposes or help How do we address this? The new intention of the Bylaw is to combine our two Agricultural Districts into one and add one Industrial District as well as a Recreational District to more suitably meet the needs of our County Mr Rusling explained that the current Bylaw encourages subdivision to kept as small as possible, preferably not greater than 3 acres Anything 40 acres or greater requires rezoning By combining the two Agricultural Districts rezoning will no longer be required for parcels over 40 acres si in large parcels However, the consensus to place a ceiling on the size of the subdivision would eliminate this becoming an issue Adding a ceiling to subdivisions was discussed at some length ~ The new Bylaw will read as the January minutes are stated Mr Wagstaff raised a question as to whether or not we should allow a larger subdivision when the intended use would be agriculture Mr Hanger was concerned that you couldn t guarantee that it stays that way especially if the property was sold Do we put the same ceiling on a natural subdivision or a piece that is cut off? r The consensus was to put a 3 acre ceiling on any undeveloped subdivisions with no area of grace If the application is for 3 5 acres it will be refused and will have to be brought to appeal Mrs Vetter recommended amending the Bylaw to create a 3 -acre ceiling INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK Mr Rusling raised two questions Are you happy with the 1500 setback, which is stricter than the code Should the setbacks have to be contained on the owner s property? If current setbacks must be maintained on the owner s land, most operators could not expand without purchasing more land Mrs Vetter suggested reducing the MDS and making it be contained on the owner's property Mr Vickery suggested that maybe less setback should be required, but more aboveground storage This way people can relocate closer without nuisance It was mentioned that on occasion when we have enforced standards to protect the adjacent landowners and the environment and it has gone to appeal the Development Appeal Board s interpretation has been looser They have less legislation and, therefore, their interpretation can tend to be less strict There was concern that more maintenance will be required if MDS must be maintained on your own property since it would force new operators to build in the center of the quarter The other question raised was whether or not you allow a residence to come in and hem in intensive livestock, especially if the facility is already in place but was not in use when the residence went in Can you stop someone from building across from a feedlot not in operation when the potential is there to start it back up Can the residence stop him? Everything already done is grand fathered New intensive operations should be made to look for land that qualifies enabling them to keep the MDS on their own property A recess was held from 9 55 A.M until 10 05 A.M SIZE OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINED RADIUS FOR LARGE OPERATORS Handling of large operators was discussed at some length If you have one animal less than the threshold number for intensive, no rules apply There was discussion of allowing no more than 15,000 maximum feeders on one site within a certain mile radius This could freeze large older intensive operators and disallow expansion The new MDS can freeze smaller operators from expansion as well Can we request large feedlots to have MDS maintained on their own land and smaller feedlots as the MDS works now? Mr Wagstaff raised the concern that by allowing only a certain number of large feedlots within a certain radius, they will have exclusive rights within that radius and no one else will be allowed to enter Also when does a small operator become a large operator? Can you have two small operators side by side and have as big a problem as one large operator? Another concern is the land base required to spread manure is quite large and too much overlap can occur • It was decided that 3000 head for feeders will be considered the minimum for a large operator and 15,000 will be the maximum. Forfarrow — finish, the minimum would be 300 and the maximum would be 1000 for a large operation Hog feeders would be 1000 to 2500 for a large operation Mr Rusling will work at completing this table for the next meeting It was felt that since poultry does not seem to be an issue their numbers will not be addressed at this time There was discussion as to what radius should be set and 3 -5 miles was selected. Mr Rusling and Ms Reimer will create some maps to show how this would be seen It was decided that when an existing producer wants to expand the new rules will apply when they become effective However, the MDS will be grand fathered It was felt that the rules concerning number of animals allowed on one site and the MDS being maintained on operators property should be applied to cattle and hogs Poultry doesn't seem to be an issue, but will check it out Mrs Vetter suggests 700 -800' MDS on operator's property for feeders and hogs This will apply to existing producers when they want to expand They may be frozen at their current number This will allow residences to come in closer than they are currently allowed to It was suggested to make the MDS on operator's land and use provincial setback distances as accepted number Mr Rusling and Ms Reimer will come up with some scenarios to be presented on overhead at the next meeting URBAN SETBACKS Currently there is a 1 mile setback from urban municipalities for intensive operations Is this sufficient? Do we want to change it to be smaller or larger? There is concern about urban centers creeping into the agricultural areas and causing operations to move It was suggested to possibly reduce the setback from 1 mile to' /z mile surrounding hamlets Mr Wagstaff suggests keeping the setback the same for both since some of the hamlets are quite large • ROADS USE & INTENSIVE F_ -I LJ Mr McCook states they have to provide more service without tax benefits It was recommended that Development Agreements be put in place to help with the maintenance and service roads until some money can be regained by taxes We would require a safe/harmless clause if they do some of the work If it is placed on as a condition of the permit and they will not sign, they would be shut down without compliance The meeting adjourned at 11 20 A.M Nim