By Nikki Jamieson
Sunny South News
Coaldale town council has approved a land-use redesignation that would allow for development of a Ready-to-Move home building facility in Parkside Acres.
During their regular Jan. 13 meeting, Coaldale town council hosted a public hearing for a land-use bylaw amendment. Bylaw 771-P-11-19 would redesignate a parcel of land currently zoned as Urban Reserve (UR) to Direct Control (DC), in order for the lands in question to be redesignated to a zoning that would accommodate the development and operation of a Ready-to-Move (RTM) home building facility.
The land in question is part of Plan 0811507, Block 3, Lot 1 (SW 13-9-20 W4M), and the facility’s area is proposed to be 67 metres east to west and 76 metres north to south, in the far northeast corner of the property.
Farmland is currently located to the west and south of the proposed facility, within the same parcel of land. Located east of the parcel of land is an undeveloped phase of Parkside Acres.
A fragmented quarter section of irrigated farmland in Lethbridge County is located east, and 19A Avenue and Highway 3 lie north of it.
The property in question was recently annexed, and it is current zoned as Urban Reserve (UR).
The applicant is proposing that the approximately 1.2-acre section of the 33-acre property be rezoned to DC to accommodate the construction and operation of the RTM home building facility.
“It is not typically a common practice (to rezone only part of a property), but it can be effective in managing proposed developments in certain circumstances, such as is the case with this application,” said Spencer Croil, director of planning and community development for the town.
The applicant is not proposing that sanitary, sewer or water servicing be brought to that portion of the site, making it transitional in nature according to town administration. The town has earmarked the area in question for a mix of future Highway Commercial and Residential development.
A DC zoning would allow for the proposed facility to occur, without opening the use of the land up to other less transitional uses, which would be hard to manage from a land use regulation perspective over the longer term.
The town had received no responses from adjacent land owners in regards to the redesignation, and the applicant had also approached adjacent landowners with a form letter describing the proposed development, for which six forms were signed and submitted to the town.
The town also contacted Lethbridge County, who replied they had no concerns with the proposal, although they did stress that the developer will need to comply with Policy 4.6.8 of the Coaldale/County IDP regarding the aesthetics of the main entranceway into the Town, for which the applicant would need to submit a landscaping plan at the development permitting stage; that the development permit be sent to the county for review as it would be considered a discretionary use under the DC zoning, which Croil said was “standard practice” as part of their Intermunicipal development plan; lighting needs to be considered in the development permit so that it does not affect adjacent property owners and the highway; and that access for the proposed use be detailed in the development permit.
Coun. Bill Chapman noted that in the application, the applicant notes a 15-year time limit, and asked if it concludes at the end of 15 years or until it is rezoned. Croil replied they need to “recognize” that the 15-year time limit offer has been made, and approach it in a different way
“The reason that that is the case, is because in the Land-Use Bylaw the maximum time we can put on a temporary permit is six months, and beyond that, really what becomes more important is enforcing things such as schedule 10 of the Land Use Bylaw, what is industrial and commercial standards,” said Croil.
“There are many other mechanisms to control when or if this development because incompatible with adjacent residential and commercial growth, other than to attach a specific time limit to the permit. So I would suggest that a specific time limit isn’t necessary in this case, and instead, other mechanisms can be used to address that.”
After the public hearing closed, council unanimously passed second and third reading of Bylaw 771-P-11-19.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.