BARRHEAD - The next version of the County of Barrhead's land-use bylaw may allow the construction of a second permanent dwelling on parcels in Agricultural Districts.
At least they will if a proposed clause ends up surviving to the final version of a yet-to-be-presented updated land-use bylaw.
Councillors instructed administration to add the clause to the bylaw by a 5-1 vote following a more than 30-minute discussion during the Feb. 20 council meeting. Coun. Jared Stoik was opposed, while Coun. Bill Lee was absent when the vote was taken.
County manager Debbie Oyarzun said council and administration have been working on updating the bylaw for several months as part of a standard review process.
"[A municipality should] review the land-use bylaw every five to 10 years," she said, adding the process was well overdue as the last time the municipality reviewed the bylaw was in 2010.
Oyarzun added that one of the topics that continuously popped up through several workshop sessions and four public information sessions was the possibility of allowing a second, permanent dwelling on property in Agricultural Districts.
"As we have mentioned [in the last few weeks, including earlier in the meeting], we have some housing challenges in the county," she said.
Development officer Jenny Bruns said that currently, on residential parcels on land, one dwelling is allowed per parcel.
However, she said the municipality may grant additional dwellings on residential parcels as a discretionary use if it is contained in a single building designed for or divided into two or more dwelling units, such as a duplex, or is part of a mobile or manufactured home park.
In an Agricultural District, Bruns said, only one permanent dwelling is allowed per parcel or subdivided lot, but a development permit for a second, temporary dwelling, i.e. not on a foundation and is readily moveable, for up to three years. If permitted, the county can approve an extension of the temporary dwelling for another three years.
She added that the one current exception for a second permanent dwelling in an Agricultural District is if the property is classified as a cluster farm.
To be classified as a cluster farm under the county's land-use bylaw, it must have one or more multiple-family dwellings on a farm unit of a minimum of 320 acres, and the residents of the housing units must have to be employed in agriculture or intensive agriculture for at least six months of the year.
Potential changes
Bruns added that administration, considering suggestions heard from councillors and the public, created options for council's consideration; the first is mostly the same as the present bylaw, except that the county may issue a temporary development permit at the development officer's discretion instead of going to council for consideration and that the permit would not need to be renewed as long as the property owner complied with municipal bylaws.
The second option would allow a second, permanent dwelling only if a parcel was 150 acres or larger, without the need to subdivide the property, and there was a minimum of 49.99 metres between them. The residences must also adhere to the Alberta Private Sewage Systems Standard of Practice.
Reeve Doug Drozd questioned why they would only allow a second permanent dwelling on 150 acres or larger properties.
"Why would we discriminate against an 80-acre parcel? We do an 80-acre split on a quarter section all the time," he said.
Bruns replied the reasoning behind it is that if they allowed it, it would restrict the different subdivision scenarios that are currently available.
Deputy reeve Marvin Schatz said he supported the second option, calling the restrictions, such as the distance between the residences, "legit".
"If you can't abide by them, then we wouldn't want a second dwelling on the parcel," he said. "[The proposed change] also makes keeping the family farm together easier."
Coun. Jared Stoik agreed with Schatz that the county should take steps to protect family farm operations but said the boundaries could get "very messy."
He added that although residences would have to be roughly 50 metres apart under the proposed clause, nothing would stop them from constructing outbuildings that do not need a permit in between.
"Then, when someone went to fraction off that parcel, there would be all these broken lines and panhandles," Stoik said, adding he was unsure how to regulate against that happening.
Bruns replied that one way they hope to combat that is to require farm outbuildings over 500 square feet to have a permit, adding that the permit does not necessarily have a cost attached to it.
"That is why we are considering the need for a permit because a lot of[ outbuildings] are on road allowances or are 20 feet away from the property line, and they are significant investments," she said. "That way, we can ensure they are in the right place if the [owner] ever decided to subdivide."
Stoik interjected that he realized and supported the need to protect family farms and help farm succession but suggested that allowing a second-dwelling for 150 acres or more doesn't do it.
"Maybe we need a higher acre requirement, similar to a cluster farm because owning a quarter doesn't mean you are a farmer," he said. "You can't have two people living on a quarter; it is not really farming."
Bruns said farming is no longer about making enough money to support a household.
"Some people want to live off the land, homestead and have their own chickens and the like, and grow their vegetables," she said.
Drozd agreed, saying it wasn't up to the county to decide whether a farm was viable.
Stoik countered saying that since he has been on council, the goal was also to protect good agricultural land by permitting a second permanent dwelling doesn’t accomplish that, at least how it is being suggested.
“You can have someone build a house right in the middle of great agricultural land and now they would be eligible to subdivide a decent sized parcel, whether they are farming or not,” he said.
Barry Kerton, TownandCountryToday.com
.jpg;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)
