Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-12 Council MinutesRoad Committee Report April 12, 2000 Present Lonnie McCook Mari Vetter Marylea Lowen Jane Allan Road Committee commenced at 1 00 P M 1 Dale Moran NW 16- 34 -25 -W4 — A request from Planning to check out the site P� distance for an approach at this subdivision with the possibility of granting a relaxation Road Committee recommends no relaxation on the site distance for an approach. 2 Gary Ensminger As per Council decision on April 11, 2000 Mrs Vetter and Mr McCook met with Mr Gary Ensminger 3 Poettcker Eric,'— SE 18- 31 -25 -W4 — Request received for an approach to barn ++ PUD5 Road Committee recommends O K to write off as all conditions have been met. I j 4. Petroland — SE 13- 31 -25 -W4 (File 2- 99551 -A request from Petroland, on behalf of nnA *,,5 Gauntlet Energy, to use the existing approach onto Secondary Highway 582 pvo5 u7 Road Committee recommends Petroland use the existing approach onto SH 582 I Public Works Superintendent COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTES KNEEMLL COUNTY April 12, 2000 A meeting of the Kneehill County Council was held on Wednesday April 12 2000 • commencing at 8 30 A.M The following were present at the meeting Jennifer Deak Lonme McCook Otto Hoff Marylea Lowen Rick Vickery Glen Wagstaff Jim Hanger Marg Vetter John Rusling Barb Reiner "r(4Qe- 0110 Y) Barb Reiner Chief Administrative Officer Assistant Commissioner Chairperson & Reeve Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Planner Development Officer C'ouncI I ty)ery)b (2 (- - 4 ctme1)J1i jmul1(,n moy7,Roo. Recorded the minutes Otto Hoff called the meeting to order at 9.07 a.m INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK This meeting was a continuation of the agenda from the March 8 2000 meeting Mr Rusling gave an overview of some of the discussion from the March 8,2000 meeting He then proceeded to go through the conditions of intensive operations to explain their significance Mrs Allan requested we define "will, shall, should, and may' so we have a better understanding of the force each condition carves will & shall = mandatory should & may = permissive There was some discussion as to whether or not a permit should be required for barns and pens if there is no change of use or increase in livestock numbers The consensus was that for intensive operations permits should still be required because any new addition would reflect on the MDS Two concerns were brought up when it comes to putting the MDS on operator s property First of all, if your priority is agriculture, by making the operator maintain the MDS on his property you have dust given the priority to acreage holders Also, you may be forcing someone to put their operation in a spot that would not be an environmentally friendly location just so they can meet their setbacks It was suggested that it would only be for new development It was asked whether or not we can have separate rules for family farms and another set for large mtensives as far as MDS is concerned For new developments where there is a choice you can require setbacks on operator s property Then you must create the criteria to differentiate between a large and small operation by the number of ammals Operations would be required to obtain permits to grow and that is where you would be able to regulate them once they crossed the threshold number A lengthy discussion ensued Mr Rusling went through and explained the other conditions Mr Vickery expressed concern over requiring farmers that have been in operation for many years to comply with the current Code of Practice Ms Reimer stated that if we don t require them to comply, we have to allow them to winter spread This is going to create widespread difficulties and a large environmental issue A point was brought up about water rights and the fact that we require livestock operators to be licensed and to be able to prove that there is sufficient water to support their operation, but an oil company can come in and drill without meeting the criteria and may in fact be using far more than the aquifer can sustain Mr Wagstaff requested we see if we can get a resolution in place where they are required to do the same background work and obtain the same approvals before they can drill He also wondered what the setback between a ng and an adjacent well on residential property had to be Ms Reimer mentioned the length of the process to obtain a water well license and the problems this is causing operators, especially if they are forced to wait until they have their license before they bring any livestock on site Many times they have gotten the approvals as to what they are allowed for usage from Water Resources but they are held up by Environment Mr Rusling pointed out that sometimes you are not licensed for the amount of usage Water Resources approves There was some discussion concerning how best to regulate intensive growth to avoid having the same problems as the southern part of the province Some ways would be to limit the number of ammals allowed on one site Another measure to be taken is to only allow one large operation in a 3 5 mile radius That way we can make sure the land base for manure distribution is not being overlapped and there is not too much strain placed on the aquifers This would only apply to new development A lengthy discussion followed about how best to approach these concerns HAMLETS Ms Reimer addressed some of the issues that are very prevalent in Hamlets Noise, burn barrels derelict buildings number of vehicles on a lot, unsightly yards, the number of ancillary buildings allowed on lots and the number of animals allowed How do we address these issues? Can we put in a system of fines? Can those fines be attached to the taxes if they don't pay? Generally you cannot add a fine to taxes, they must be taken to small claims court to collect However you can add the cost of extinguishing fires to taxes y The possibility of a spring clean up for Hamlets was mentioned Maybe for a small fee getting a contractor to come in and haul out the garbage and possibly void the dump fee for the day However, some felt they would have to do it for farmers as well Fire is a big concern and it was felt a fine should be put in place for someone starting a fire Their insurance would be required to pay for damages, but it was felt a fine should be implemented for their negligence as well It was suggested we do controlled burns in the Hamlets However, there could be a lot of problems with this as well When we took Torrington over, we adopted the policies of Torrington initially, but it was felt that no longer is necessary It was felt that Torrington needs to comply to our Bylaw the same way the other Hamlets are required to Some discussion ensued over how the Bylaws should be presented to the public It was felt that the easiest way to make people aware of the proposed changes to the Bylaw would be an open house in several different locations around the County It would be an opportunity to meet one on one with people to answer questions and respond to comments before a public hearing takes place LJ i i It was reported by Mrs Lowen that there is an open well on Trailnet's property and they need to be notified so they can take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the area The meeting adjourned at 11 52 a.m O&�* Reeve