The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-06-14 Council MinutesKNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTES June 14, 2000 A meeting of the Kneehill County Council was held on Wednesday, June 14, 2000 commencing at 8 30 A.M The following were present at the meeting Lonnie McCook Assistant Administrator Otto Hoff Chairperson & Reeve Marylea Lowen Council Member Jim Hanger Council Member Marg Vetter Council Member Jane Allen Council Member Barb Reimer Development Officer Barb Reimer Recorded the minutes Otto Hoff called the meeting to order at 8 34 a.m INTENSIVE LIVESTOCK This meeting was a continuation of the agenda from the April 12 2000 meeting. Mr Rusting gave an overview of some of the previous discussion. We then proceeded to go through Section 13 (a) (e) concerning restrictions on the location of intensive operations Mr Rusting asked if there were any concerns with the 3 mile distance restriction between large intensive operations Everyone was in agreement that too much more than that would be too hard on the land Mr Rusling also confirmed the numbers chosen as a maximum size limitation on intensive operations per site Again there was agreement that anything greater than these numbers per site would be too stressful to the land RURAL SUBDIVISION & DEVELOPMENT POLICIES There was a lengthy discussion on what would be some examples to subsection (c) and how we would deal with someone putting a subdivision across the road from an inactive feedlot What happens then if the feedlot wants to reactivate? It was felt that planning decisions need to be based on the current land use, however, subdivision would be discouraged where it right unnecessarily infringe on the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) It would make a difference whether or not there was an existing residence that already encroached on the MDS as compared to an undeveloped site Some issues were brought up concerning subsection (e) It was stated that if you are never going to approve a larger subdivision for an agricultural purpose than maybe this subsection should be taken out However if it is left in, some of them do need to be approved There was concern that people will see this as the loophole to obtain a larger subdivision and then not follow through with their agricultural intentions Can we break it down between agriculture industrial, and residential use Abuse has been an issue How can we discourage this tendency without disallowing any larger agricultural subdivisions? Mr Rusling suggested we require rezoning to accommodate larger agricultural parcels This gives both the neighbors and council a chance to respond This was felt to be the wisest course of action Mr Rusling will create a District to address larger subdivisions for agricultural purposes COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL Much discussion took place concerning the allowance of Country Residential Districts in Kneehill County Getting the residences there is not the issue, however maintaining these districts, especially the roads, creates more problems than the taxes are worth After much debate it was decided to remove the Country Residential District from the Bylaw RECREATION TRAILS Trails will be under the discretionary use of the Recreation District Much of the wording in this section of the Bylaw comes from Glen Scott and Brownlee Fryett Some issues with this section concern who will be required to maintain and carry the liability for this trail It was felt that the trail should be required to be responsible for both of these issues Ms Allan raised the question as to whether of not we can create a separate district for abandoned rails and corridors? Mr Hanger asked whether we could expand this to include abandoned feedlots, campgrounds, etc A question was raised concerning crossings and who as senior partner carries top priority? Mr McCook responded that it appears that each crossing will have to be fought separately He also said that AB Infrastructure is taking the same stand that Kneehill County is ( "The rail left so we now become the senior partner ') If we require rezoning we can shut it down at the beginning RURAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT It was reinforced that any industrial development shall be contained within an approved area structure plan. Mr McCook questioned whether we should allow this type of development away from a primary highway because you wind up landlocked due to road bans The point was well taken and will be a strong consideration when taking future applications into account. The meeting adjourned at 9 56A.M ijC of A nistrahve Officer �i • Z