The approval of Kneehill County’s new unsightly premises bylaw was done by a close margin, as third reading was passed by a 4 to 3 vote at the Sept. 10 regular meeting of council.
Protective Services Manager Debra Grosfield presented the unsightly premises bylaw which earlier this summer passed first and second readings. Grosfield noted nothing had changed within the draft bylaw.
In her summary Grosfield noted that the bylaw didn’t necessarily propose a heavy-handed approach to enforcing unsightly premises rules; rather, a graduated approach was included.
It was noted at a previous council meeting Kneehill currently has unsightly premises rules only for hamlets within its boundaries; any other properties where an unsightly premises situation may arise are handled through the Municipal Government Act (MGA).
Coun. Carrie Fobes began the discussion by saying she appreciated the amount of work staff did drafting the bylaw which Fobes noted she wanted to see apply to properties across the municipality.
Fobes added she was happy to see the bylaw focus on education over enforcement and at least if a situation does arise the county has something in place besides the MGA.
Coun. Jerry Wittstock noted he would vote against the bylaw as in his opinion unsightly premises bylaws really only have a place in hamlets. Wittstock stated he understood why hamlet residents could be affected by the appearance or condition of a neighbour’s property, with proximities being so close.
He said his personal concerns about the proposed bylaw revolved around the fact such community standard rules are interpreted by whoever is enforcing the bylaw and that can change as the members of council or county staff change.
“I don’t believe that someone should be telling me as landowner in Kneehill County with neighbours or somebody driving by that I should have to clean up my yard because somebody else doesn’t like it,” said Wittstock.
Reeve Ken King, reading from the bylaw itself, noted that the enforcement officer can take into account surrounding properties when judging whether a premises is “unsightly.”
Essentially the bylaw suggests a property may not necessarily be “unsightly” if many properties in that particular community are “unsightly.”
Coun. Fobes added that she saw the prevalence of country residential acreages as a major motivating force for the new bylaw.
Coun. Wade Christie noted that if an unsightly premises situation arises, the bylaw gives staff options to deal with it.
Coun. Debbie Penner stated that she felt the existing MGA approach to unsightly premises was fine and didn’t see a need for change. Penner pointed out that under the new bylaw enforcement would be complaint-driven.
Councillors passed third reading of the unsightly premises bylaw by a 4 to 3 margin, Coun. Faye McGhee, Fobes, Laura Lee Machell-Cunningham and Christie in favour, Penner, King and Wittstock opposed.
Stu Salkeld
Local Journalism Initiative reporter
ECA Review
