A slight tax increase?

[cakadu]

Linda, the selling of lands on the Eastern Slopes without having regard for wildlife corridors is certainly and interesting issue. Any development eg: logging, mining, recreation within areas where there are wildlife corridors must be addressed, usually in an EIA. The paving of the parking lot issue is something I won't comment on but it would seem that the amount of parking required should have been addressed when the building design was approved. The attitude exhibited by the planning department of any municiplity is a direct reflection of the position of council with regard to planning matters. Unless, of course the council doesn't keep themselves informed about such things.
Never underestimate the power of the citizens in a municipality if enough of them share a concern similar to yours. A group can make a presentation to council on any issue, if planning issues are a concern across the county, I would certainly encourage a group to put a presentation together and make their concerns public.

[cakadu]

Interesting issue unfolding in my own municipality regarding and application to subdivide a 4 acre parcel that is within the Minimum Distance Separation of an existing feedlot that has a permit for 2000 head of feeders. The feedlot is full to capacity and also has a 750 cow/calf operation on the same land.
I am an adjacent landowner and had the application sent to me for any comments or concerns. I called the Development Officer yesterday to ask about the philosophy of the county with regard to approving these sort of parcels when doing so will cause any application by the feedlot to expand to be denied. I asked the development officer what the required set back distance is from a feedlot to the nearest dwelling and he didn't know, not only that but he proceeded to make numerous rude comments about why I wanted to know, and what business it was of mine etc.
I advised him that I was in the cattle business and having feedlots locally bidding on my calves was a benefit to me. He was completely ignorant of the provincial legislation that governs feeding operations. The parcel being applied for contains what was built as a shop to repair motor bikes etc. The owner had a condition on his development permit that he could not have any living quarters in his building, but went ahead and built an apartment and lived in it. When the feedlot applied to the county for their permit, it was approved because NO-ONE was permitted to live in the shop across the road.
Last year the development officer recommended that the planning commission give a development permit to the shop owner because in his words he had done major renovations and the shop was now a house with an attached garage !
This is total BS, as the building is a two story building with the bottom story used as a repair shop.
By approving the darn building as a house, and approving a subdivision the county will effectively stifle the growth of the feedlot unless the opporator chooses to request and NRCB Board hearing some time in the future if he wishes to expand.
I sent a lengthy note to the county manager about the attitude of his staff member. Many people would be intimidated by that sort of conduct and not raise any objections or concerns they may have with development.
I plan on attending the Planning Commission meeting as an adjacent landowner and asking what the required set back is from the feedlot,just to see if the jerk actually did check and see what it is.
I do happen to know that the actual distance to the shop/house from the feedlot pens is 150m and the required distance is 575m.
I did suggest to the development office that it might be a good idea to have all that information in front of the planning commission when they were deliberating whether or not to approve the subdivision, he said he would 'thank me not to tell him how to do his job'.

[cowman]

Emerald: I suspect your municipality will be quite happy to charge the garage owner residential rates instead of just the rate for a shop? I also suspect how any rule goes will depend on who has "pull" and who is just your average Joe? Usually in these type of cases(in my county) you can almost count on the farmer losing out to residential! Which I used to think wasn't very fair...but in fact we need to skid these stinking factory farms out of the developed areas?...Or maybe all livestock, for that matter?
Linda: I'm not sure what happened with the added parking space thing. I believe the long range plan was always to buy the land to the south...council just needed to have some time to let any anger over the new office(the Taj Mahal) blow over? I don't think it ever even came up in the election, so maybe they figured it was "Katy bar the door" and they could go hog wild with blowing more money? I mean they only bought 4 acres for around $375,000! Chicken feed for a big operation like Red Deer county, right?...hmmm remember the sweetheart deal the county got on the original land?
It will be very interesting to see what happens in Mountain View County(Olds) as the new council put a stop order on their own little palace before construction got going full bore?
The methane gas exploration in the eastern part of the county is scary to say the least. A group is trying to set up a surface rights association in the area right now. We had a very well attended meeting Dec. 22 at Pine Lake and are proceeding from there. Of probably 200 landowners in attendance the vote was unanimous to proceed with setting up an association. These methane boys are not like your typical oil companies! If you think the old oil companies were sleaze bags you have no idea how low these dogs are!
What really bothers me is they seem to be wanting to do their really dirty work in the sparsely populated areas along the Red Deer river out east. If you've never been there, it is without a doubt the most beautiful place in the county.
Because I am involved in this surface rights group I recently asked our Reeve what was the sense of the land use forums, if the methane gas companies were going to destroy the land and water for both development and agriculture? He had no clue what these companies were like or the damage they could do! So obviously I "educated" him and he is now a believer and has verbally pledged to get behind this surface rights association! We'll see I guess?

[cowman]

cowman, if Mountain View has put a stop order on the building what is going to happen with what they have already managed to construct ? It will be interesting to see if the contractor that was awarded the bid to construct the building will sue !!
As for allowing the development parcel in my county it is designated as a house with an attached garage so there will be no possible avenue to have commercial assessment.
It was a non compliant use before and was in the corner of a farm so it was classed as a farm shop, and there again, there was no increase in assessment until the county found out there was an apartment in it, then they were assessed residential tax, but were still not in compliance with the land use bylaw, or the fire by law which did not allow for residental quarters in a shop used for repairing equipment etc.
The county development officer should have pushed for a stop work order instead of trying to bend every rule in the book to get the darn thing approved.
My view as a taxpayer is that if the council does not welcome expansion of feedlots nor encourage new ones they should set it out in their Municipal Development Plan rather than allow ad hoc subdivisions that will virtually stifle expansion of existing operations without the operator having to bear the cost of what might be an expensive hearing if he chooses to expand. The feedlot I refer to is one hell of a long way from a factory farm. There are setbacks in the Provincial legislation that set out the distance any new feeding operation must be from residential development, and municipalities can include buffers within their Municipal Development Plan that also indicates where confined feeding operations are able to locate within their jurisdiction.

[cakadu]

Cowman, don't you think that if the county is going to allow all of this methane gas exploration, then it is incumbent upon the councillors to make themselves aware of the costs and benefits of allowing all of this exploration? Given that this methane gas thing has been newsworthy for about 2 years now, don't you think it a bit odd that those that will be making the decisions for the entire county are unaware of the consequences? We can't just look at the benefits and the revenues it will bring.

Emrald, it always seems as though those that continually skirt the rules are rewarded for their actions and those that play by the rules, are in some fashion punished for adhering to the rules.

Wasn't the whole point of establishing regulations regarding CFO's to ensure that the rules were applied equally and consistently across the province? How can there be such continued deviation from what is set out? I know that everything is subject to interpretation, but shouldn't there be limits to how much latitude is given in terms of interpreting legislation?

[cakadu]

Linda the provincial regulations were to put everyone on a level playing field and ensure that environmental issues were dealt with at the time of application for new or expanding Confined Feeding Operations. Many municipalities placed numerous conditions on feeding operations but didn't monitor the operation to ensure that the conditions were being complied with.
The right to allow subdivisions within the setback of a confined feeding operation still rests with the municipalities. In the issue that I refer to the feedlot has a permit and abides by his conditions, is a good operator and certainly has the landbase and family involvement to expand his operation at some time in the future. I am very concerned with someone that has bent the rules and hasn't even made an attempt to follow rules will be allowed to stifle the growth of an existing operation in an area of the county where cattle operations abound. If the feedlot was half a mile from a hamlet or a town or other country residential development I would have a different view on the matter.
The fact that our local Development Officer and CEO aren't the least bit informed about legislation and neither of them have an agricultural background is a real problem .

[cakadu]

What you are describing is indeed a real problem emrald. I don't know how people can be paid or expected to make informed decisions when they don't know or understand the issues and concerns or it sounds like in your case, the legislation regarding various decisions. If you haven't seen the area or don't understand how it all works, then how can you possibly be responsible for making the decisions.

What were the criteria that these people were hired on? More and more we are seeing people who have never had much of anything to do with agriculture making decisions regarding agricultural practices, issues etc. We are slowly being regulated to death and by people who don't have a clue what it is they are setting policy to.

Granted, you can't know everything about every topic, but you should at the very least be knowledgeable about what you are responsible for.

[cakadu]

The CEO has excellent strengths in financial matters which of course, is very important to a municipality. The previous Development Officer was a farm boy, and was a stickler for rules and regulations but he butted heads with the CEO, and left. The current Development Officer takes exception to anyone wanting clarification on any of his recommendations to the planning commission. His complete lack of knowledge about agricultural issues and the need for space for the agricultural industry to grow is going to be a real problem.
The previous council gave him widespread decision making powers and much of what used to come to the planning commission is within his powers to approve, which is scary to say the least.
I documented my conversation with him and sent it to the CEO, so it will be interesting to see what evolves.

[cakadu]

Sad reality is that we will all meet up with those person(s)that are in reality insecure in their positions which manifests itself in the behaviors you are describing.

Rather than admit to possibly not knowing something it is easier to attempt to make everyone else feel small. Unfortunately we see an awful lot of those type of people in positions of authority which ends up being to the detriment of us all.
The other scenario is where people get a little bit of power and it goes to their heads.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is done about your letter to the CAO.

[cakadu]

I spoke to the chairman of the planning commission and he advised that this is not the first time the development officer has been rude to a member of the public. Apparently the guy is still on probation so that may result in him either having an attitude adjustment or getting shown the door. He made some glaring errors a few months ago when developing an area structure plan for a hamlet which is down the road from my farm. He was recommending a buffer zone of nearly five miles in all areas around the hamlet where no confined feeding operations could locate, and he wasn't aware that there already was a feedlot existing within the buffer zone. I contacted him and asked why they were literally freezing a huge amount of land that would likely never be developed into residential, when confined feeding operations could take the form of poultry barns that really make very little impact. By recommending the huge buffer zone he was literally saying that no-one could diversify their operation to include a small feeding operation regardless of the species. The owner of the feedlot attended the council meeting when the area structure plan was being discussed and made a presentation regarding his own operation and the intention to expand within the next few years. He had all his facts straight regarding the legislation governing feeding operations and tabled a lengthy letter regarding his concerns with the proposed plan, so the council reduced the buffer zone by nearly two miles.
Of course the Development Officer is still smarting from being over ruled in that instance.