The Mountain View County subdivision and development appeal board has turned down an appeal of an earlier municipal planning commission decision rejecting a proposed subdivision.
The appellant had made an application for a proposed subdivision creating a new parcel of 2.89 acres on a parcel located at NE 34-31-24-2-5 east of the Mountain View County landfill north of Didsbury.
The application was for a re-designation from agriculture to country residential. The commission turned down the original application on March 7.
The appellant cited a number of reasons for the appeal of that decision, including that the lands are a homestead property and not agriculturally cultivated production lands, and that the lands are located next to an acreage zoned country residential.
The appeal board gave five reasons for its decision to deny the appeal:
• The board determined that the lands were appropriately classified within the agricultural preservation area outlined with Mountain View County bylaw 09/12 due to the lands' potential soil productivity, location and historic agricultural activity. Further the board found that although raising lambs may be difficult as outlined by the appellant, there are a variety of other agricultural uses that may be better suited on the lands.
• The board determined that as the lands were not granted approval for re-designation and have thus retained their agriculture district zoning, the approval proposed subdivision would be in direct contravention of bylaw 09/12.
• The board determined that although they have the jurisdiction to vary the development standard of the 80-acre minimum parcel area required by county bylaw 16/18, the impact that the proposed subdivision would have on the rural, agricultural character of the area and the promotion of agricultural land uses within the county would be greater than the benefit derived by the proposed subdivision.
• The board determined that the proposed subdivision may be better suited for the potential multi-lot residential development area as required in county bylaw 9/12 rather than within the agricultural preservation area.
• The board determined that although there is evidence that other quarter sections have been permitted three titles by Mountain View County, it is ineffective to compare applications without the entire planning and development history, administrative review, legislative compliance and required technical studies and ultimately county council retains the absolute authority for the re-designation of lands within the county.
The appellant could appeal the board’s decision to the provincial Court of Appeal.
