Boarding kennel approved

Details

Published on Saturday, September 2, 2017

North Cypress-Langford council meeting highlights

Submitted
The Neepawa Banner
A service described as “much needed” in the municipality will become a reality. The proposed boarding kennel in North Cypress-Langford got the “go ahead” at the Aug, 14 meeting of North Cypress-Langford Council. Reeve Bob Adriaansen chaired the meeting with a full slate of councillors.

Owners J and C Baron were in attendance to hear planning officer John McEntee put forward their applications for a conditional use (to allow a boarding kennel for dogs in an agricultural district) and a variation application (to allow the kennel on a 2.81 acre parcel, rather than the regulated 3 acres.) The kennel will exist in the Baron home on pt. NE 03-11-15, which has a fenced exercise area behind and no close neighbours. Both applications were approved.
Another variation/conditional use application was also considered. M & L Bowley proposed to subdivide their yard site from their 80 acre agricultural parcel to create a rural non-farm dwelling. The proposal then is to sell the yard site and retain the balance (bushland) for recreational purposes.
A conditional use was required to create the non-farm residential parcel. A variation order was required to vary the size of the yard site from the 10 acre allowed to 11.82, and to reduce the agricultural balance from the allowed 80 ares to 68.12.
There was some opposition to this proposal. Some members felt that they were opening the door to more dwellings on agricultural parcels. Once the variation was approved, the owner may build another dwelling on the remaining parcel, but it cannot be subdivided off. One council member called it “undue fragmentation.”
Both orders were given approval.
A proposed cattle crossing under a municipal road was given consideration. K. Chandler of Chandler Farms proposed to place a seven foot diameter culvert to connect Pt NE 10-12-14 to pt. NE 11-12-14. The road has deep ditches at the proposed crossing, so it makes more sense to move cattle under the road than above ground. The road elevation would not change.
Council did have concerns regarding the fence that would be from the ends of the culvert to the pasture fence. Because the fence would completely block the ditch, there needs to be signage a good distance from the fence to avoid an accident with snowmobilers and quads. All costs and signage would be at Chandler Farms’ expense, but may be erected by the municipality. The culvert would have to be put in place when it does not conflict with harvest, as the road would be closed.
McEntee also raised the issue of a business operating out of a home in an RR2 area near Neepawa. While the neighbours had agreed to allow the business to operate, understanding that there would be little traffic and disruption to their residential living. However, this has proved not to be the case, as the road has become increasingly busy.
McEntee noted problems with the existence of this business. It does not qualify for a ‘home-based’ business, or ‘home occupation’ because the business is not owned by the owner of the property. Under the regulations, all persons working at the business must be family members, and this is also not the case. In rural residential area, the property is primarily for residential use. A letter will be sent to the property owner that the business cannot exist on that property.