The Mountain View County subdivision and development appeal board has denied an appeal of an earlier approval of a development permit for a caretaker/manager dwelling in the Eagle Hill-Westward Ho rural community.
The ruling came following a Sept. 13 appeal hearing in council chambers.
On Aug. 1, the municipal planning commission approved the permit for the proposed dwelling near the Eagle Valley Cemetery north of Highway 27 on Rge. Rd. 44 and Twp. Rd. 44.
The dwelling will be approximately 900 square feet and will be used as a year-round, on-site residence for the owners of the Forest Heights Golf Course.
The Eagle Valley Cemetery Board launched an appeal of the building permit approval, citing three reasons in the notice of appeal:
• Adjacent landowners were not notified of this discretionary development permit as required in the land use bylaw prior to the decision.
• Neither was the development permit application announced in the local newspaper for two weeks prior to the decision being made as required by the land use bylaw.
• The development permit places the dwelling within 39.4 feet of the adjacent property line (cemetery fence), which is within the 100-yard required setback.
During the Sept. 13 hearing, area resident Peggy Johnson spoke in support of the appeal, saying, in part, that, “We’ve worked very hard to keep it (the cemetery) a place of park-like serenity and we are working very hard to maintain its quietness and its private-ness.”
Also during the hearing, applicant David Bach said, in part, “We can’t accept doing nothing with our land. I don’t know how they are being impacted by my house on that hill.”
In its decision issued on Sept. 25, the board denied the appeal, citing several reasons, including the following:
• The board determined that the Eagle Valley Cemetery Board was unable to adequately address how the proposed development, considered as a separate application, will unduly affect the cemetery or other adjacent landowners.
• The board determined the proposed development is compliant with the setback requirements of bylaw No. 16/18 and is a suitable and compatible use for the existing development of lands and with existing development on adjacent lands.
• The board determined that although the proposed development complements the existing campground and golf course developments located on the lands, the proposed development is required to be reviewed on its own merits and is not bound by previous decisions or conditions tied to those decision.
• The board determined that the appropriate circulation process was undertaken to notify the public of the approved development permit and therefore the development permit was issued in compliance with bylaw No. 16/18.
The board added two additional conditions to the permit:
• The dwelling, caretaker/manager shall be used in association with the management and security of the recreational resort and golf club.
• Future expansion of the dwelling, caretaker/manager, additional uses, or additional buildings will require the issuance of a new development permit.
The appellant can appeal the board’s decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal within 30 days of the board’s ruling.
