The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-02-02 Council Minutesru • n 2 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTE February 2, 2001 S A meeting of the Kneehill County Council was held on Friday, February 2, 2001, commencing at 8 30 A.M The following w Marylea Lowen Otto Hoff Marj Vetter James Hanger Richard Vickery Glen Wagstaff Jennifer Deak Lonnie McCook Barb Reiner John Rusling Barb Long ere present at the meeting Councillor Division One Councillor Division Two Councillor Division Four Councillor Division Five Councillor Division Six Councillor Division Seven Administrator Assistant Administrator Development Officer Planner, Mountain View County Recorded the minutes Reeve Hoff called the meeting to order at 8 55 A.M. Mr Rusling reported he has received all of the changes requested to date but sensed Council wanted to tackle some of the larger issues at this point in time Mrs Long left the meeting at 8 55 A.M and returned at 9 05 A.M The following issues were discussed Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO's) Discussion ensued on requiring rezoning to an Intensive Livestock District, for both existing and new developments, but leaving it as a discretionary use so that the Planning department would deal with the conditions through the MPC and SDAB It was noted that with a rezoning requirement, Council not the SDAB's, would have control over land use planning. The current system, as a discretionary use, not a separate district, was also discussed with Council feeling it was working well. Council felt one of the advantages of the current system was the MPC /SDAB process involves the public more in the decision making It was recommended at least 5 members at large, having a knowledge of agriculture and land use, be maintained on the SDAB roster so there is a pool to draw from when needed The representative mixture of members, from within and outside of the municipality, was felt to provide a more objective perspective. Decision Consensus of Council was to keep the Intensive Livestock Operations as a Discretionary Use within the Agricultural District. Direct Control Districts Mr Rusling explained the development of a `Direct Control District" would cover any developments that do not fit the current bylaw (a development that mixes uses) Mr Rusling noted this district would give Council more control since they would be able to write the rules for each application If Council were to approve a redesignation to a Direct Control District, the MPC and SDAB would be unable to turn down a development proposal The SDAB can only deal with the issues of conditions, and if the rules are clear and mandatory the SDAB would be unable to change the decisions The rules would be in place before the bylaw is passed and the Development Permit is applied for Mr Rusling noted the problem with the Direct Control District, is that it has to be consistent with the Municipal Development Plan or it could be contested in court Decision. Consensus of Council was that a Direct Control District not be added to the Land Use Bylaw, at this time Planning C; KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTES February 2, 2001 Rural Residential "Hamlet Wannabe" Ms Reimer advised there are areas within the County, zoned Agricultural District, that have surveyed, small lots but have lost their hamlet designation (for example Grainger) Ms. Reimer recommended that rules be put in place to allow individual lots to be developed properly Ms Reimer noted that any developments need to meet the conditions and setbacks as specified in the bylaw or the applications would be turned down and due to the size of the lots in most cases the regulations cannot be met. Other areas of concern were the responsibilities for road building, road maintenance and the current approach policy Decision Consensus of Council was a special district, to cover these areas, not be added to the Land Use Bylaw However, the conditions outlining the meeting of setbacks, proper access to the developments, and regulations regarding the number of animals allowed, be addressed as special requirements under the Agricultural District Regulations re. number of animals allowed on acreages Ms Reimer distributed copies of the Red Deer Land Use Bylaw, "Country Residential Agricultural District (CRAG) ", outlining the amount of livestock per acre, and requested regulations be put in place regarding the number of animals allowed on acreages Mr Rusling and Ms. Reimer will prepare a draft for Council approval and present it at the next planning meeting The meeting recessed from 10:20 A.M until 10 35 A.M Trails Council consensus was the County should have control of the future development of trails within the municipality It was noted that if rezoning was necessary, the first reading of the bylaw would be done prior to a public hearing, and if desired could be defeated at that time Decision: Consensus of Council was a rezoning to Recreational District, for each quarter section involved, should be necessary in order to develop a trail Removal of Churches, Halls etc from Agricultural District Mr Rusling questioned the reason for the removal of churches halls etc from the Agricultural District? Decision Council agreed churches community halls etc be considered a Discretionary Use under the Agricultural District, in order that each development application would be looked at individually Min_ imum Distance Separation Ms Reimer reported in the new `Code of Practice" released by Alberta Agriculture specifies that if there is a written agreement with the adjacent landowner, a residence may be built within the MDS In the County's existing LUB, no one can build within the MDS Decision Consensus of Council was on any new development permit applications, the MDS has to be met within the individual's own land base On any existing operations wishing to expand, the "Code of Practice" figures should be adopted Manure Storage & Spreadmg Mr Rusling reported he needed to know what the County would like changed from the Code of Practice, with regards to manure storage and spreading? Decision- Manure Storage Consensus of Council was the minimum storage capacity should be for seven months, not the 9 months as per the Code of Practice Above Ground Storage was Planning • • :4 00 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTES February 2, 2001 felt to be too expensive to make it compulsory in every case, however it could be used as a condition depending on the site Manure Spreading, Consensus of Council was the MDS should be 1,500 feet from the nearest residence unless injected into the soil, incorporated into the soil within 12 to 24 hours, or having written permission from the adjacent landowner Advertisement of Development Permit Applications The need to have every development permit application advertised in the newspaper prior to approval being granted by either the Planning department (Permitted use) of the MPC (Discretionary use), was discussed Mr Rusling advised the process in place protects all parries and gives them the opportunity to be heard The LUB writes the rules and regulations, the Planning department or the MPC makes the decision by applying these rules and the decision is then advertised so the public can appeal if so desired Mr Rusling further advised the MGA stipulates the MPC is not a public hearing process, and if both sides can express views at the MPC level that is what it becomes The MPC is there for the developer and the rights of the neighbors or those opposing are protected through the appeal board At this time the notification of adjacent landowners prior to the MPC meeting, is done by the Planning department as a courtesy, it is not required It was noted concerns regarding the amount of the appeal fee, have been received and various alternatives were discussed Decision. Consensus of Council was the existing process is working well and the only change requested was to place the amount of the appeal fee in the newspaper along with the notice of development approval Mrs Deak suggested the first reading to the new Land Use Bylaw should be done as soon as possible, as she is of the understanding that should a development application go to the SubDivision & Development Appeal Board, the new Land Use Bylaw would carry some weight Mrs Deak reported she would check with legal counsel regarding this issue Council recommended first reading be done on Tuesday, February 13, 2001, with an Open House held for public review and input at Kneehill County on March 5, 2001 from 10.00 A.M until 3 00 P M and 7 00 P M until 9 00 P M It was further recommended the Public Hearing on the Bylaw be held on March 22, 2001 at which time a second and third reading could take place Ms Reimer was requested to handle the advertising for the Public Hearing Moved Council adjourn. Time 11 50 A.M Planning Reeve