BARRHEAD — A County of Barrhead property owner will have to settle for a slightly smaller residential parcel after council denied a request to subdivide a 17-acre lot.
During their April 15 meeting, county councillors voted 6-1 against the application to create the oversized Country Residential lot from a quarter section of agricultural land. Coun. Bill Lane was the lone supporter.
The property, located in an Agricultural District and previously unsubdivided, includes a former yard site. While the original house has been removed, several outbuildings and a surface discharge septic system remain.
County development officer Jennifer Oyarzun told council that although the site contains a newer shop, it was constructed without the proper permit. As such, any approval would require an “as-built” development permit for compliance.
She explained that under the county’s Municipal Development Plan (MDP), Country Residential parcels in Agricultural Districts must range from three to 10 acres. However, the MDP does permit lots up to 15 acres with a real property report (RPR), and up to 17 acres in specific farmstead separation cases.
“The ask for 17 acres doesn’t check the box,” said Oyarzun. “The MDP allows up to 17 acres with an RPR if the additional acreage is needed to maintain the integrity of the farm site. We’re not sure that’s demonstrated here.”
Instead, county planners recommended approving a 15-acre subdivision—still larger than typical, but within the MDP’s limits—subject to several conditions. These included submission of a real property report, a satisfactory septic system inspection, and an as-built development permit for the existing shop. The applicant would also need to enter into a road widening agreement on the eastern boundary, ensure all crossings and culverts meet county standards, and obtain written consent from the energy company that built the existing approach, which meets county specifications.
Oyarzun noted the quarter section borders Range Road 30, with access to the proposed lot off Range Road 25.
Nate Wilson, the applicant’s surveyor, said the extra two acres were requested because they are heavily treed and unsuitable for agriculture, thus preserving more arable land on the remainder of the quarter.
Applicant Kevin Faryna added that the additional land also includes coulees, steep terrain, and marshland.
“I grew up on a farm and understand the importance of protecting agricultural land,” Faryna said. “But this land isn’t usable for farming. Plus, we’d like to keep it in case we ever decide to have cattle.”
Councillors Walter Preugschas, Ron Kleinfeldt, and Jared Stoik expressed sympathy but stood by the MDP guidelines.
“I’m conflicted,” said Stoik. “I understand the reasons for going bigger, and that it’s not impacting usable farmland. But it doesn’t meet our requirements, and by accepting it, we’d be setting a precedent.”
— Barry Kerton, TownandCountryToday.com
