The Rural Municipality of Leask No.464 held a public meeting April 25 to address its intent to adopt a bylaw under The Planning and Development Act, 2007 to amend bylaw No. 6-92, known as the zoning bylaw.
The intent of the proposed bylaw is to add the zoning district: country residential lakeshore district. This textual amendment will apply equally throughout the entire municipality. The reason for the amendment is to provide for the regulation of development of country residential acreages bordering bodies of water in the municipality.
A large delegation of cabin owners from Lac La Peche were in attendance as were property owners from Martin's Lake and Lac La Peche and a representative from a private country subdivision.
Representatives from council were Steve Nelson, division 1; Real Diehl, division 2; Myles Robin, division 3; Marcie Kreese, division 4; Robert Girod, division 5 and Victor Unyi, division 6. Administrator Sheri McHanson Bud was recording secretary.
The amendment to part IV - Zoning Districts and Zoning Maps includes adding the following parts to subsection 5 District schedules to read 5.1 Country Residential Lakeshore District (CRLD). Listed were the intent to provide use and regulations for the development of CRLD; the permitted uses including residential as single detached dwellings; discretionary uses permitted only by resolution of council and only in locations with development standards specified by council for both recreational (pertaining to public boat launches, public docks, golf courses, public parks, public picnic grounds, public beaches, pubic sports fields and nature trails and exhibits) and accessory uses (buildings and structures located on the same site with a principal building or use); regulations stipulating minimum site, yard and building requirements as well as recreational development as listed above; and removal of trees.
Minimum site and yard requirements encompass many facets. The proposed amendment would include lake frontage of 100 metres, minimum acreage subdivision of 1.0 hectare (2.5 acres), front yard setback of 10 metres, side yard setback of 10 metres, rear yard setback of 10 metres and lakefront yard setback of 45 metres.
Reeve Cantin explained the process of how a bylaw is adopted or amended. This was followed by questions from the delegation.
Council was asked, "why do you think this is a good thing for the RM of Leask?" Reeve Cantin was the first to acknowledge the question and replied by saying that council has expressed concern about the number of and potential for a number of developments within the lakeshore area. With small lots comes a high density of people but if the development is considered in a responsible way and the lots are of considerable size it would be a real advantage.
Councillor Myles Robin indicated that more tax dollars would be generated to the municipality through development growth than by raising the mill rate by one. He did indicate he would be in support only if the development is done in a reasonable manner, one that would be governed by a bylaw amendment such as the one proposed.
Councillor Real Diehl raised the question of having a tax benefit but at what cost? At the cost of safety of the public or of the environment? "The bylaws were implemented years ago to protect the bodies of water and now there is more pressure for development but the lakes have not gotten any bigger," said Diehl.
Councillor Marcie Kreese would be satisfied with lakeshore development if it is regulated with a bylaw and the capacity for each lake would be addressed individually. She indicated that it may be a tax benefit but hopefully the people enjoying the lakes would also support the local businesses.
Councillor Victor Unyi voiced his support for the bylaw. Councillor Steve Nelson indicated he was in support of the bylaw amendment as long as development was regulated. Councillor Robert Girod also indicated he was in support of the bylaw amendment explaining that the increased tax base would provide more revenue for road maintenance.
Rocky Marcinkiw, vice-president of the Lac La Peche cabin association, asked council to first assess the capacity of each lake before amending a bylaw. He asked them to look at the impact that development and growth would have on the lakes.
Reeve Cantin replied that the bylaw amendment couldn't be passed if it conflicts with the official community plan (OCP) which, Cantin informed, has not yet been approved. Cantin also mentioned that various government agencies review the OCP and will provide assessments on various water body capacities.
Another member of the delegation then questioned council as to why they were spending time working on the bylaw amendment if the OCP has not been approved yet.
Another discussion was held regarding why ratepayers were not notified of the bylaw amendment considered by council. As elected officials, each of them is accountable and responsible for informing the ratepayers in their respective divisions of any public meetings. Reeve Cantin indicated that the public meeting was advertised in one local newspaper and a notice was on the website.
The ratepayers in attendance, many who have permanent residences outside of the area, indicated that a letter be sent to each ratepayer notifying them of such meetings. Reeve Cantin said that it was difficult to notify everyone and that the municipal office does not have enough manpower to mail letters to everyone. It was suggested by delegation that council seriously consider either taking the time to notify every ratepayer so the ratepayer can make the decision to attend or not; or hire an extra person to assist with the project.
The Lac La Peche delegation had received some letters from individuals who could not attend but the association was not permitted to read them because some letter content referred to a private development within the municipality and not solely the bylaw amendment.
When one of the representatives asked councillors to provide their thoughts following all the discussion only councillor Kreese indicated that she would be going back to her ratepayers for their thoughts.
When all discussion was exhausted, the public meeting was adjourned, approximately two hours later.
