By KEVIN BERGER, Local Journalism Initiative
Tensions were high at the RM of Vanscoy No. 345 office on Thursday, May 21 as a group of around 25 area residents showed up to protest a proposed re-zoning on the north side of Highway 14.
A public hearing had been scheduled that morning on Bylaw 09-2026 to re-zone Parcel D at SE 35-36-07-W3 from Agricultural Residential (AR) District to Commercial District.
First reading had previously passed on the bylaw during the April 16 council meeting, and the public hearing was necessary in order for council to pass second and third reading.
While the public hearing did go ahead, it was strictly to hear comments on the proposed bylaw, as there were three councillors not present at the meeting.
Reeve Leonard Junop told the crowd he could not guarantee when a final decision would be made on the re-zoning application, but “everything that has been said today will be listened to.”
The controversy over this re-zoning actually dates back to last year, when the owner — a residential construction company called Cambridge Homes— submitted a similar application to the RM.
Cambridge Homes, which purchased the property last summer, had outlined plans for a major development that included a community centre, a brewery, temple, warehouse and office complex.
That previous re-zoning application was denied by RM of Vanscoy councillors at their December 21, 2025 meeting after vocal outcry.
A representative of Cambridge Homes who was present at the May 21 meeting acknowledged they had dropped their previous re-zoning application and now they were now asking to build a warehouse on the property to get some use out of it, as they have no use for farmland.
“Before we bought (the land), we had different plans. Things didn’t work out. We spent tons of money to do all the studies, but council decided not to go with the application,” he said.
Francis Wallace, who introduced himself as a registered professional planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, appeared on behalf of nearby landowners.
He indicated the residents’ objection is not to business activity in principle, but the proposed re-zoning based on “compatibility, precedent, traffic and access, nuisance impacts and the long-term character of the area.”
Wallace noted that Cambridge Homes was not submitting a discretionary use application within the existing AR District, which would allow council to apply site-specific conditions.
A re-zoning to Commercial District allows development rights to be governed by that re-zoning, “not the applicant’s current description of an office and warehouse,” he said.
“Council should therefore evaluate the full land-use consequences of the (Commercial) District.”
Wallace said council should also give “significant weight” to the fact that a similar re-zoning application was refused and ask what has “materially” changed since that refusal.
He added that there are significant compatibility question that “do not appear to have been answered” relating to traffic impacts along Highway 14, as well as other concerns.
“Before approving this re-zoning, council should have clear information on Highway 14 access, sight lines, turning movements, heavy vehicles, drainage, buffering, lighting, outdoor storage, noise, dust, servicing, fire protection and cumulative impacts,” he said.
He added that council should consider any possible impacts on the nearby Saskatoon Livestock Sales facility.
If council was unwilling to deny the application, Wallace suggested they consider a deferral until a more complete planning review can be completed.
Following Wallace’s presentation, resident Louis Gariepy presented a petition with 55 signatures opposing the re-zoning.
He stressed the point that there are 14 to 15 established residences within one mile of this property, including his own residence that he and his wife Tammy built “from scratch.”
“We only had a piece of dirt and we built a home,” he said.
He also pointed out there is “not one ounce of standing water” within a kilometer of the property, and raised concerns relating to traffic and sewage-handling/garbage disposal at the property, even if development is limited to an office and warehouse.
“We are concerned about that because we live here,” he said.
Louis’ wife Tammy elaborated on a point made earlier that if the land is zoned commercial, it could potentially be used for purposes other than an office and warehouse, such as a car and truck wash, repair services, motel, and so on.
“It’s pretty shocking to think that that could happen on that land,” she said.
Another resident who identified herself as Sharon noted the property in question was a half-mile to the corner of her land, adding that she grew up in the area and had neighbours who enjoyed the same, quiet lifestyle as her.
She stressed the potential fire risk in that area, indicating it would take one spark to set the nearby prairie grass on fire and then spread to a nearby treed area where several homes are located.
“I myself have experienced this happen,” she said. “When I was a child, a grass fire turned into a bush fire that nearly burned down three houses.”