M.D. approves development application for barn and shop

Posted on September 12, 2024 by Vauxhall Advance

By Heather Cameron
Vauxhall Advance
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

During a recent M.D. of Taber council meeting, a public hearing for Development Application 81-24 was held, and stated that the property owner of Lot 1, Block 1, Plan 9611496 within NW 8-9-16-W4 (164073 Twp Rd 92), John Teichroeb, was applying for a development permit to construct a 4000 s.q. ft shop for Industrial Class A use and to construct an 896 s.q. ft barn on land designated “Direct Control”.

Tom Anderson, Development Officer for the M.D. of Taber, stated that the property does fall within Direct Control and Development Permit 122-2 allowed for the construction of a 2,616 ft dwelling on the parcel. Condition five, Anderson explained, provides that the applicant requires a development permit issued by the M.D. of Taber prior to construction of all ancillary buildings and the M.D. of Taber Bylaw 1978 provides that all structures deemed discretionary, such as ancillary buildings, require approval from Council as a Direct Control District. 

This Bylaw, Anderson explained, was passed in the summer of 2021 and in consultation with the owner, there was a desire to allow developments such as the ones being proposed – Industrial Class A; hence it had to be changed from Group Country Residential, where the type of development would not be permitted, to Control District. 

“That was done at that time with the understanding that the applicant could apply for such a development,” said Anderson.

Anderson then reviewed the information sheet that summarized some of the points that Planning and Development considered in the application: construction of a 4,000 ft shop building for Industrial Class-A use storage of semi-trucks and an 896 ft barn.

“The shop building will serve as storage building for the applicant’s trucking operation,” said Anderson. “The operation itself is operated offsite, and the shop is only for the storage of semi-trucks.”

Anderson stated that the building and barn meet the minimum 150 ft center line setback from Township Road 92 and Range Road 165 and the proposed development falls outside of the 350 ft intersection site triangle from Township 92 and Range Road 165. 

The waivers that have been requested, Anderson stated, are a sewage holding tank for the shop.

“For SDA consideration is section two of Municipal District Bylaw Number 1978 which states that isolated rural industrial class A development is discretionary use in the Direct Control zoning,” said Anderson. 

Council also received a letter from Allison Davey of CCA North Paddock Farms who expressed concerns about the proposed buildings, as they stated that the square footage is very large and assumed it would be used to operate a business. 

Davey also stated that they are of the opinion that although they are okay with commercial and industrial buildings being built, they think those should only be done in designated areas, as families and businesses move rurally, and it is essential that they understand they live in a farming community. 

Many people, Davey’s letter explained, don’t understand the activities involved with farming and that leads to many complaints; secondly, the impact that the increased traffic will have on the roads, including heavy truck traffic, will increase the wear and tear on a road that already has soft spots and can be difficult to navigate in winter; thirdly, the block of land has a very high water table and there is concern that the buildings would flood or slump. 

“I have no issue with neighbors building a reasonable-sized shed for personal use, but when commercial buildings are being built, the M.D. needs to consider the consequences and the impact that it can have on their neighbors,” said Davey’s letter.

Following Davey’s letter, Bonnie Brunner from ORRSC added a bit more history regarding the property.

“This was a property that was previously zoned Group Country Residential,” said Brunner. “It had been the subject of several multi-lot proposals for consideration of multi-lot subdivision and due to the nature of the property, and it has been confirmed that there is a high water table in this area, that the property was not suitable for multi-lot subdivision and as such, given the size of the property and the fact that there was no Area Structure Plan addressing things like keeping of animals or the size of the buildings on the property, that Council had determined it appropriate to rezone this to Direct Control so the property could have some development potential on it.”

Given the number of parcels in the quarter and the size of the property, Brunner stated, it was not possible to rezone this back to Rural Agricultural, so as a Direct Control District, given the list of permitted and discretionary uses, there was deliberate intention in terms of the types of uses that are permitted and those that may be approved at the discretion of Council as the approval authority. 

“With respect to the types of uses on the discretionary list as Tom indicated, Class A is discretionary and that is intended to be distinctly different than what we have classified as Industrial Class C,” said Brunner. “Industrial Class C allows for things like the operation of trucking businesses, welding, vehicle repair, and so on. With this application, the applicant has indicated that there won’t be a trucking business run out of here, but in fact, it is just the storage of the vehicles and is consistent with the definition of Industrial Class A.”

The storage of trucks, Brunner explained, could be considered as a discretionary use under that Industrial Class-A component and as far as the barn goes, that would be considered an ancillary building and there are sections in the Direct Control District that specifically address the maximum number of animals that can be kept on the property. That fact, Brunner stated, has been included as a potential condition should Council choose to approve the development.

Following Brunner, the applicant, John Teichroeb, took questions from Council, and clarified information that had already been established within the hearing. Teichroeb also explained to Council that he once lived in Barnwell and wanted to stay there due to loving it, but the parking lot designated for the trucks was not safe and a couple of his trucks were broken into and $20,000 worth of damage was caused and no perpetrator was ever caught, plus his batteries were stolen and his fuel tanks were also emptied. Since parking his trucks in his yard on his current acreage, Teichroeb said, he has not encountered those difficulties.

Council then turned to the planning team for their final comments and the planning team recommended Council consider an additional condition that would limit the maximum of trucks to three and trailers to three that could be parked on the property. The planning team also established that in the future if the landowner ever wanted to make changes to any development permit approval, he could make a new application. Another condition the planning team recommended was that loaded trucks will not be stored on the property.

A motion was then made to close the public hearing and the motion was carried.

Upon further discussion of the already established points, a motion was made by Deputy Reeve DeGroot that the M.D. of Taber approve Development Application 81-24 subject to the information added that a maximum of three trucks and three trailers shall be permitted on the property at any point in time with any increased intensity for truck and trailer parking requiring a new development permit. The motion was carried.