A moment of levity between Councillors
June 3rd, 2021
There were three items before council for planning and development applications and reports.
Zoning Amendment Denied
A development application for rezoning was denied by council without the opportunity to receive feedback from the public.
The applicant has 72 acres in the valley, which is zoned as R1. The applicant requested the land be rezoned to Ag because the maximum number of animals allowed under R1 restricts the number of animals to six, and the applicant wants to have a viable livestock operation. The property is surrounded by other properties that are also zoned as R1.
In an agriculture zone, up to 300 animal units are allowed; over 300 is classified as an intensive livestock operation and would need to go through a discretionary use approval process.
Initially, Reeve Kent Farago said that he would want neighbouring landowners to be aware of what a change would mean to them, with the potential of having up to 300 animals next door. Planning and Development Director Aimee Bryck said because the application is for rezoning that public notification would be required for two weeks. Bryck also said that she would have to confirm if notification was required from neighbouring properties; however, the RM could still reach out to solicit their comments.
Bryck further explained that the R1 designation is a ‘relic’ and a holdover from the previous bylaw. The RM doesn’t use R1 any longer but instead designating a property as a CR1 as the two designations are similar.
In a CR1 designation that allows up to six animals, there are standards that dictate setbacks. Those setbacks allow some assurance that corrals and facilities aren’t built up to a property line. There are no in-between designations, one allowing up to six animals and the other up to 300.
Councillor Cody Garbutt reminded the council that there had been complaints about the number of animals around the property and other issues in the previous year. Garbutt said he empathized with the applicant as he felt they were trying to do the right thing as they continue to be over the number of animals allowed; however, he didn’t feel the land was conducive to an ag operation.
Reeve Farago asked about the process going forward, asking if the council would have the first reading and then reach out to neighbouring properties or would council reach out to neighbouring properties first.
Councillor Jordison noted that the council did not need to proceed with a first reading. Bryck confirmed that if the council wanted to proceed, they would have first reading, which would launch the public notification process that would include a public hearing. The public hearing would allow neighbours to present any concerns about the proposed rezoning. Council would then consider the submissions with no timeline to approve or deny as the RM could have the process be as long as they want it to be.
Reeve Farago posed a question, “Is there any point of going down this road if it’s a no go with council right now?” Bryck responded that there wouldn’t be if the council didn’t support it, they would let the applicant know, and because it’s a rezoning application, they would have no right of appeal.
Councillor Neuls asked for a recorded vote on Councillor Garbutt’s motion to reject the zoning application. Councillors Garbutt, Jordison, Langford and Farago voted for the motion, and Councillors Neuls and Schlosser voted against the motion.
Subdivision Application #2021-021
Planning and Development Director Aimee Bryck noted she had been working with the applicant and their surveyors. The applicants have amended their plan, which would reduce one of the parcels to meet the size requirements. Bryck noted some additional information relevant to the application, and after several questions council approved the subdivision application.
Residential Homestays and Short Term Accommodation
The matter had been brought before council several weeks ago from a ratepayer who wants to rent a guest space room in his home through Airbnb. Director Aimee Bryck said that Airbnb rentals are classified as residential homestays/short-term accommodations. Bryck noted when she first brought the proposal before council, they were very supportive and had directed the administration to prepare some amendments. Bryck reviewed what other jurisdictions were doing to regulate similar land use.
Bryck suggested council reconsider charging the applicant with changing the zoning bylaw as it currently isn’t provided for in the RM’s bylaws. The text amendment cost is approximately 400$ Bryck said the applicant felt that other people would benefit from the change.
Council agreed the benefit would be to others as well. Councillor Langford noted it was an administrative procedure and part of the cost of running the RM.
Council also discussed permitting as a discretionary use and if renewals would be required. Bryck noted the City of Regina handles similar rentals under business licensing. As the RM does not have business licensing procedures, it would fit best under their permitting structure under the zoning bylaw.
Bryck noted in her review there is a local business that has a permit to operate bed and breakfast. Reeve Farago asked if that business was still approved and operating, noting there had been issues with units. The CAO stated the owner had removed the two additional units, and the owner had filed an assessment appeal. An assessor would be verifying the removal.
Councillor Jordison noted that until recently, the business was advertising they were operating out of a barn and had a different interpretation of the approval. Councillor Garbutt pointed out that the barn was the only unit that had been approved.
Director Bryck asked for council’s input around some unique opportunities in the RM for barn conversions, granaries into cabins, etc. However, the RM would need to be careful that they are correctly connected to water and sewage facilities. Reeve Farago felt, in his opinion, if an outbuilding would be used, it should be inspected and permitted for public occupation, then the RM would be ok with that.
Bryck noted that there is a unique aspect for people who are looking for agricultural tourism accommodations. She said the council could either limit it to people’s residences or open it up to outbuildings, accessory buildings such as garage and garden suites. Councillor Jordison thought that Airbnb had to be limited to homes, but finding out it didn’t, he was ok with opening it up to include other buildings.
Bryck said she looked at what the RM of Edenwold does. She said in Edenwold, they are considered a vacation rental and have a definition and policies for where they are allowed, noting that they aren’t designated as a discretionary use in their zoning bylaw. Bryck said she wasn’t sure if Edenwold would use business licensing to regulate them and would reach out to their planning and development manager.
Reeve Farago noted that if they are for public use, they should be inspected and approved, saying that was the problem council had with the other units. Councillor Langford noted that it wasn’t long ago that the council was in discussions regarding the differences between 4-foot roof rafters for ag buildings vs 2-foot spacings for residential. He thought that council would be opening the doors, returning to a four-foot rafter on a farm with a converted building, and that council would find themselves in a ‘real dilemma.’
Farago responded, saying there were other things, such as access to fire safety which is why they need to be inspected. Lanford said he wanted to stick with allowing residential Airbnb rather than modified outbuildings. Farago was supportive of the opportunities for development, such as a hobby ranch wanting to convert granaries or a barn as per Bryck’s comments and that sticking with residential only would be limiting those opportunities.
Garbutt asked where liability falls around these developments. Farago thought that he would rather err on the side of public safety and that if someone wants to create these buildings, they should do their due diligence to make it safe. Bryck agreed with Farago that there is an onus on the owner that they have to make sure their building is up to code and that an inspection piece would be important.
Director Bryck will draft, formalize it and prepare the amendment for first reading, which will kick start the public notification process.
Little Church Bridge
The RM of Longlaketon and the RM of Lumsden met to discuss the estimates for the bridge replacement, which straddles both RM’s. Public Works Manager Leighton Watts said they agreed to go forward with a single-lane structure. He has forwarded the information to the engineer to start the tendering and final design process.
Fire Dept. Delegation
Fire Chief Jeff Carey presented as a delegation before the council to answer council’s questions around fire bans. Carey said they pay attention to all of the conditions that can contribute to fire risks. Weather, dryness, humidity, temperature and wind, as well as other factors.
He said that in their experience, a fire ban has minimal impact on the type of grass fires they attend. He said the majority of fires are caused by mechanical failures or by trains. He added that it is not the fire pit that gets away or a farmer burning stubble because farmers are usually prepared. He said they rely on farmers a lot to bring them water.
Councillor Jordison suggested that Carey submit a fire condition report to let the public know that the situation is being monitored. Carey also suggested providing some education through the website. Carey thought that if they can educate people, they don’t have to stop people from having their backyard fires.
Lumsden Sports Association – Financial Support Request
The Lumsden Sports Association is separate from the town. The town of Lumsden has contributed $20,000. The RM agreed to match the town’s contribution, which will come from the safe restart money the RM had placed into reserves.
South Shore First Responders Board – Medical and Emergency Equipment Grant
Councillor Jordison was in support of the request to purchase mannequins. Council carried the motion.
Village of Disley – Grading Request for Village Streets
Reeve Farago noted that the RM didn’t do custom grading for ratepayers and said this is the problem if they do it for another area.
Councillor Garbutt said he had reviewed the request noting that the road is 1 km of gravel roads. He said that if the RM did it twice a year, it would only be two kms. He thought it was justifiable because the RM would be assisting another municipality within the RM of Lumsden.
Councillor Jordison agreed with Councillor Garbutt but was concerned that the RM would be taking on the village of Disley’s public works and posed what would happen if something occurred between grades. Jordison was also worried about what would happen with snow removal.
Public Works manager Leighton Watts said the commitment would be one hour to grade the roads in Disley. He said they already grade a section of Disley’s road because of its location because it is difficult for the grader to stop for a short distance. He added because the RM’s ratepayers use the section of the road, they grade it. However, they do not do the internal roads of Disley. Watts said he was ok with doing it as long as the council was ok with the optics of the RM doing the work.
Council put the discussion on hold until after the council’s closed session. After council came out of the closed session, they decided they would complete a courtesy grade of Disley’s roads once in 2021 and would assist them in looking for a company to help them moving forward.
The next meeting of council is on June 17th at 7:00 pm.
- Jenifer Argue, Local Journalism Initiative reporter
Note: These reports may be abridged for content
