Februa? 20, Also in attendance were the applicant and a number of interested ratepayers.

Transcription

1 PONOKA COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING Februa? 20, 2001 A Public Hearing of Ponoka County was held in the County Council Chambers of the County AdministrationBuildingon Tuesday, February 20, 2001, with the following people in attendance: Councillor G. Hinkley Councillor D. Hoar Councillor P. Jensen Councillor D. Keay Reeve G. Svenningsen Mr. C. Cutforth, County Administrator Mr. T. Webber, Assistant County Administrator Mr. B. Riddett, Manager, WCPA Mrs. D. Raugust, Recording Secretary Call to Order Reeve Svenningsen called the hearing to order at 10:38 a.m. Pt. NE W4 Ruck, Bruno Ag to CR The Hearing was called to consider concerns/objections to the proposal of Bruno Ruck to rezone Pt. NE W4. Also in attendance were the applicant and a number of interested ratepayers. Mr. Cutforth reviewed the application to rezone 10 acres of the NE W4 from Agricultural District to Country Residential District to allow for the subdivisionof two lots for estate purposes. He read a petition signed by 9 people opposing the application. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Sierpinski supported the application if it?nalized the road location. Mr. Riddett noted that the property was in farm production and was surrounded by farming operations. For this reason, he recommended that Councilrefuse the application. Mr. Ruck noted that without the subdivision approval he would be requesting that the road be moved off of his property. Mr. Cutforth con?rmed that the existing survey evidence proved that the road was encroaching on Mr. Ruck s property. Mr. Ruck agreed that if the subdivision was approved, the road could be left where it was and properly surveyed. Mr. Ed Winters noted his opposition to subdivisionsin general. Mr. Joe Sejdl noted his opposition population and dogs that were created. to subdivisions and the extra Mr. Cutforth advised those in attendance that the Director of Surveys had determined that the existing evidence would remain unless all affected parties could reach agreement. Since this could not be done, the County was required to move the road or allow Mr. Ruck to subdivide and give up the required right-of-way. Councillor Hoar questioned how the County could acquire the necessary right-of-way from the property to the west of Mr. Ru k s. This would need to be negotiated with Mr. Sejdl.

2 February 20, 2001 PublicHearing Page 2 of 6 Joyce Winters noted that the road had been surveyed in 1907 and the discrepancy was with the land survey. Mr. Cutforth agreed that the Director of Surveys had also questioned whether the original township survey was incorrect or the road survey. Murray Webster questioned if the statute of limitation wouldn't come into effect in this matter and was advised that this route could not be taken if the road was upgraded. Those in attendance for this portion of the hearing were thanked for their attendance and comments and they left the hearing. NW W4 Plantec/Wyrozub Ag to RR or Ag to WP The Hearing was also called to consider concerns/objections to the proposal of Rick Wyrozub, represented by Plantec Planning Consultants, to rezone the NW W4. Also in attendance were Rick Wyrozub, the applicant, and Roy Heilmann from Plantec Planning Consultants, as well as a number of interested ratepayers. Mr. Cutforth reviewed the application to rezone 103 acres of the NW W4 from Agricultural District to Recreational Resort District to allow for subsequent subdivision into seven lots. The application noted that the soil was not good quality and the tree cover on the property needed to be protected. Further correspondence from Plantec Planning Consultants provided an outline plan for the area and explained the reason for requesting Recreational Resort zoning rather than the Watershed Protection District. It noted that the WP district allowed animals where the RR district did not and the WP zoning did not allowfor the size of lots proposed. A letter of objection from Gordon & Lorna Fillingerwas read into the record opposing the development. Generally the objections were as follows: Not enough land base to handle number of lots permitted Sets a precedent around a lake that should not be overpopulated Increase in traf?c and noise May affect their adjacent farming operation Extra pets will negatively affect livestock operation and cause liability concerns Damage will be done to the banks in the form of entertainment - Potential negative impact on wildlife. - Potential decrease in adjacent property values. Correspondence from Lacombe County advised that they did not oppose the application, provided it was subdivided into six lots. Mr. Riddett noted that the County had determined that it needed to protect the Chain Lakes and had created the Chain Lakes Special District to accommodate this protection. This had subsequently been amended to be the Watershed Protection District in the new Land Use By-Law. This district encouraged subdivision of large tree covered lots which were protected from clearing. Mr. Riddett noted that the zoning should have been to Watershed Protection to ensure that the size of the lots were not reduced through further subdivision. He suggested that in the subdivision process, the County shouldn't take a municipal reserve which would leave the property open to public use but should instead use an Environmental Reserve easement so that ownership remains with the properties in order to protect the property from ATV sand misuse. : /, &/ 5/5

3 February 20, 2001 Public Hearinq Paqe 3 of 6 Mr. Heilmann concurred that the Watershed Protection District would be acceptable to the applicant. They had proposed a bankslope protection through a reserve, however, they would agree to include this property into the lots protected by an environmental reserve easement. Lorna Fillingerpresented a petition signed by 64 people opposed to the proposal. Correspondence from Scott Cuthbeitson opposed the proposal due to his cattle grazing adjacent to the property. Any major development of the property would negatively affect his farming operation and have a negative impact on the sensitive lake. Eric Ostergaard supported the idea of subdivisionand noted that he had never had any problems with the acreage owners not respecting the adjacent farming operations. He agreed with the use of the Watershed Protection district to ensure protection of the trees and the lake. Ryan Smith, an adjacent farmer, expressed concern with the land values and the future of farming in the area if subdivisionswere allowed to occur without proper management. Lorna Fillinger questioned if the number of lots could be changed after the rezoning is approved and was advised that any application would have to conform to the Land Use By-Law. Actual protection of the lake and banks through an environmental reserve easement could only be monitored by the County through a development permit. Mr. Wyrozub clari?ed that through the WP district, no building could occur adjacent to the lake or on the bank and 75% of the trees would have to remain on the property. Casey Ackermannsstated if the applicant was truly concerned about the protection of the land, then they should not subdivide. Mr. Wyrozub advised that he had originally intended to develop a residence on the property but had encountered a number of concerns with hunters, etc. He would apply a restrictive covenant to ensure that no hunting would be allowed on the property. Casey Ackermaans felt that the property Wyrozub did not wish to live on it. could be re-sold if Mr. Judy Ackermanns opposed the development of this property due to its negative impact and inconvenience on the adjacent farming operations. Ryan Smith questioned why Mr. Wyrozub would create a development that he himself was trying to avoid when he purchased the land. A show of hands of those in attendance who opposed the development was overwhelming of those in attendance. Eric Ostergaard again suggested that the residents consider fairness in allowing this subdivision. An adjacent landowner opposed the development due to the fact the owner was not protecting the trees on the property now. Lorna Fillingercautioned that Council could be setting a dangerous precedent and potentially affecting the lake. Reeve Svenningsen advised those in attendance that a Chain Lakes Water Quality study was being undertaken at this time. Herman Siemans, an adjacent landowner with a hog/operation, /,; I all L//

4 February 20, 2001 PublicHearing Page 4 of 6 expressed concern about this development affecting his farming operation and the future of farming in the area. He speci?cally opposed the recreational zoning since this was not a recreational lake. Ron Shewchuk felt that acreage owners should be kept on the lakes to ensure that farming operations were kept away from the lakes. He also felt that acreage owners could co-exist with farming operations through mutual respect. Usually acreage owners were good keepers of the land since they had so very little of it. Those in attendance for this portion of the hearing were thanked for their attendance and comments and they left the hearing. E1/ W4 Brachmann, Dan Ag to DC(ILP) The Hearing was called to consider concerns/objections to the proposal of Dan Brachmann,to rezone the EV: W4. Also in attendance were the applicant, Dan Brachmann and a number of interested ratepayers. Mr. Cutforth reviewed the application to rezone 320 acres of the E / W4 from Agricultural District to Direct Control (Intensive Livestock Production) District to allow for expansion of an existing hog operation to 500 sows (farrow t0-wean). Nancy Jensen requested clari?cation that this operation would not be expanded beyond the 500 sows (farrow to wean). Mr. Brachmann advised that the existing barns would be used to?nish the hogs, approximately 600 pigs at any given time. The required MDS would be 1300 feet. Mrs. Jensen noted that provided the MDS didn't encroach onto their property they did not oppose the application. Any changes to the development would require an additional permit. She requested that the operator be required to sign a declaration stating that he would be required to follow the code of practice. She speci?cally requested the code of practice since it covered manure application and the County's land use by-law did not. Ada Ashton expressed concern that the value of her property would be negatively affected since it was immediately adjacent to the hog operation. She questioned when the regulations would be province-wide, rather than differing from County to County. Nancy Jensen questioned what rights a landowner loses when an MDS encroaches onto their land and was advised that they gave up the right to develop their property. The hog operation takes precedence over all other development within the MDS. It was noted that the MDSdid encroach onto surrounding lands. Nancy Jensen questioned when the expansion factor would take effect and was advised that it could not without the consent of County Council and the adjacent landowners. Mrs. Ashton questioned advised that there was not. if there was an inspection policy and was Bob Hemeyer clari?ed that the balance of the land would be required for manure disposal and questioned if this was adequate or if more was required to ensure that the adjacent lands were not affected by run off. Mr. Harold Luce noted that in the near future, annual or bi annual testing of land for nutrient management would be a requirement, thus

5 February 20, 2001 PublicHearing Pace 5 of 6 ensuring that no over-fertilizing occurred. The code of practice determined the amount of land required for manure disposal but there were no regulations in place to ensure that all of this land was used. Concern was expressed that this operation could be grandfathered as a non-conforming use under the new code of practice, when the Code was made law later in the year. Bob Hemeyer questioned if the incorporation of the manure was a requirement. This would be regulated by County Council. Shawn Campbell questioned if he would be required to incorporate manure that he purchased from this operation. Mr. Cutforth noted that if this operation was approved, the condition applied to all property the manure was applied to. Nancy Jensen questioned if the environmental assessment and site assessment had to be done prior to approval and was advised that they were requirements of the County. She requested that the County ensure incorporation of manure within 48 hours and the proper disposal of dead animals in the development permit. Shawn Campbell questioned the use of a lidded storage container at the entrance to the property and felt that this could create a hazard because of wildlife. Mrs. Ashton noted that currently there were two operators who piled their dead animals at their gateway and Mr. Cutforth clari?ed that there were grandfathered operations. A resident questioned if a lagoon was proposed with a straw cover and Mr. Brachmann noted that a three-stage lagoon was proposed in order to separate waste. The straw cover could be a part of the conditions of the development permit. Nancy Jensen questioned if any additional barns could be located on this site and was advised that it would be entirely dependant on the numbers applied for. Council would consider the amount of land required to be rezoned, whether it be the east half, only the north or south quarter, or only the 30 acre site. Those in attendance were thanked for their input and they left the hearing. Pt. SE W4 Pieron/Petrovich Ag to CR orwp The Hearing was called to consider concerns/objections to the proposal of Olga Pauline Pieron, represented by Zoran Petrovich, to rezone Pt. SE W4. Also in attendance were Zoran Petrovich and a number of interested ratepayers. Mr. Cutforth reviewed the application to rezone 40 acres of the E 1/2 SE W4 from Agricultural District to Country Residential District to allowfor subsequent subdivisioninto two equal lots. Mr. Riddett supported the application as it would potentially protect the Chain Lakes valley if the tree-cover remained. He proposed\that the zoning be changed to Watershed Protection to ensure the remained. treecover / ll / / l

6 February 20, 2001 Public Hearinq Paqe 6 of 6 Morris Thalen opposed the application due to the potential impact on his farming operation from additional residences in the area. Ron Shewchuk supported the application as it created a buffer zone between the large farming operations and the Chain Lakes. He also noted that this piece of land was not farmable due to the tree cover. Mr. Shewchuk also noted that groomed trails had been created through the trees which could be enjoyed by all. Hank Borg questioned if Council was going to change the zoning to Watershed Protection. He questioned if this was going to be an acreage area or a farming area. Mr. Petrovich agreed that the property could be rezoned to Watershed Protection in order to protect the trees. Mr. Thalen questioned if expansion of his feedlot operation would be affected by this application and was advised that it could. Those in attendance were thanked for their input and they left the hearing. 051/00 Adjournment Moved by Councillor Jensen, at adjourned. 12:54 p.m., that the hearing be...carried unanimously 4.4 Jaz- Reeve Counbf Administrator