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