Red Deer County council wrestled over a development permit application for discretionary use for a riding arena and stables during its Municipal Planning Commission meeting last week.The application said the operation, located seven kilometres east of Red Deer, is primarily a family-run horse farm with a proposal to operate a boarding and training stable on the side in a casual manner. This is the second time it had come before the commission – last July council deferred making a decision, asking for a traffic impact assessment.Councillors' opinions varied on whether or not the application should be considered intensive recreation, as suggested by administration.“This is an agriculture operation,” said Div. 3 Coun. Penny Archibald. “Horses are still ag. If you want a couple of horses at your place that aren't yours I don't care … I firmly don't believe this is recreation,” she said.Div. 4 Coun. David Hoar, Div.5 Coun. Richard Lorenz and Mayor Jim Wood agreed.In the land-use bylaw intensive recreation can include an equestrian sports field, riding arena, indoor shooting range and a sports field with a viewing stand or bleachers.The traffic assessment suggests there could be 20 trips daily to the location by individuals visiting their horses, but there are no special events planned, and no bleachers constructed, the application states.“I believe we've seen in the past what can happen when we have grandstands when an operation becomes something other and becomes intensive,” said Wood, who was against designating the operation as intense recreation. “If it's just to look after horses and board, there's not a lot of noise. If the true use is what it says it is then it should remain agriculture.”Neighbours from the area asked council to defer the decision until they had time to review bylaws on what is considered an agricultural operation.“I believe there is a middle ground and the operation proposed can exist and be neighbourly. I urge you to defer the decision on the application until bylaws are in place,” said Jan Fisher, who spoke on behalf of three other families.She said wording in the application, such as “no groups are anticipated” and that there will be “an estimated 20 trips per day,” is vague and provides no assurance or protection if those numbers do change. Fisher was one of three people who spoke against the application.Other concerns included water, road access, and increased traffic.Both applicants, Dale and Christine MacIntosh, spoke before council.“We're just asking for a pasture board for horses,” said Christine MacIntosh. “I've trained horses myself. I've always had a smaller arena. I don't want a Spruce Meadows. I've got my own business and I don't want the headache of private boarding.”Div. 6 Coun. George Gerhke said he wanted to wait to review any necessary bylaws.“We need to have a discussion on what is intense agriculture. I'd like to postpone until we get bylaws in place and review.”Div. 1 Coun. Philip Massier questioned who determines what is agriculture, and what the current definition is for the county.“Part of the issue is where to draw the line on what is commercial. Essentially all agriculture is commercial so how do we draw the line and limit for horses? We are struggling and I don't have a clear answer,” said community services manager Jo-Ann Symington.Wood, Archibald, Lorenz and Hoar voted to defeat the application for the development permit as intensive recreation.“An ag building doesn't need a permit as long as it's an ag building,” said Wood. “My concern is if we have to have rules for agriculture use then we're opening a whole can of worms and we're talking about facilities all over. Ag is ag. There are no loudspeakers (for the proposed operation), it is not a concern to the public that some people are here talking about. Should that change, I'm sure we'll be back talking about this."Gerhke and Massier opposed the decision. Div. 2 Coun. Don Nesbitt asked to remove himself from voting because he lives near the site.
