Sturgeon County residents heaped scorn on the council’s proposed agribusiness bylaw last week, saying it was too vague and restrictive to work.
Sturgeon County council held a second public hearing on its proposed diversified agriculture bylaw Oct. 6.
Council introduced this bylaw last May to address recommendations made by the Agritourism Review Task Force. The bylaw was meant to promote agribusiness and agritourism in the county while protecting public safety.
If passed, the bylaw would create a new AG-2 land-use district, which would allow for agricultural development that drew more traffic than a typical farm. It would also create two new land uses: diversified agriculture, which included commercial experiences related to farming; and event venues, which covered places for weddings and other commercial gatherings.
Prior to second reading, council redefined diversified agriculture so as to exclude events that were not “primarily agricultural in nature,” such as weddings, retreats, ceremonies, and corporate functions. They also banned event venues from Agricultural zones and made them discretionary in AG-2 ones; event venues were originally permitted in AG-2 zones and discretionary in Agricultural ones. Council ordered a second public hearing on the bylaw due to the substantive nature of these changes.
Panned all around
About 15 people spoke in person and by phone at the Oct. 6 hearing, with many more submitting written comments. The vast majority were opposed to the proposed bylaw. Many were Prairie Gardens employees who said they would lose their jobs if this bylaw passed.
County resident Cheryl Gerlock said she supported the bylaw’s new restrictions on event venues, but said it needed to set specific limits on when agritourism sites could operate and how many guests they could host — she suggested operating hours of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and a cap of 100 guests a day. She called on council to either do more consultation for this law or scrap it entirely.
“If businesses are forced to scale back, lay off staff, or close as a result, that is on them, as they are the ones who made the decision to move their business beyond what the law allowed,” Gerlock said.
“We need to ensure bylaw revisions are written to protect neighbours first.”
Former county councillor Patrick Tighe said Prairie Gardens has caused “disastrous” traffic issues and created a real risk of death and injury on area roads.
“Agribusiness and tourism could be very great for this region … but not at the expense of the masses that live here.”
Laurel Andersen, daughter of Prairie Gardens founder Tam Andersen, said the bylaw lacked the specificity needed for farmers to get into agribusiness. It says intensive agriculture accommodates “minimal” site visits, for example, but does not state what number of visits qualified as “minimal.” It also did not account for weddings and other commercial events with an agricultural focus.
Bill Bertschy, an Indigenous elder in residence at Prairie Gardens, said the county’s proposals would interfere with his ability to practice his culture and way of life, as he held Indigenous weddings and other ceremonies at the farm.
“For over 500 years you tried to assimilate us as a Native person,” he said.
“This is not right.”
Gary Vander Waal, president of the Alberta Farm Fresh Producers Association, said in a written statement that this proposed bylaw would make agribusiness unaffordable to some small farms and force them out of business.
In a written statement, agritourism advocate Pierre Cormier called on the county to allow farms permitted for diversified agriculture to hold weddings, retreats, ceremonies, and corporate functions that were focused on agriculture and limited in number — ten weddings a year, for example.
Coun. Deanna Stang emphasized that this bylaw was not just about one business (Prairie Gardens) but about how best to draw agribusiness to the county.
“We need to make sure people that are coming and going are safe.”
Council was expected hold a final vote on the diversified agriculture bylaw later this month.
