Board overturns campground rejection

The Mountain View County subdivision and development appeal board has overturned an earlier decision by the municipal planning commission (MPC) refusing a development permit for a proposed tourist campground in the Bearberry-Coalcamp area west of Sundre.

The appeal hearing took place in council chambers on Aug. 31, and the board issued its ruling on Sept. 13.

The $25,000 proposed campground would be located at the Schott’s Lake RV and Guest Ranch (formerly the Diamond Buffalo Lodge) on the east side of Rge. Rd. 71 approximately one kilometre north of Highway 584 (at NW 1-33-7-5).

The campground facility would be 54 individual sites, and would be located along the southern border of the property.

The landowner is Schott’s Lake RV & Guest Ranch Inc., the applicant is Michael and Kimberly Verkerk, and the appellant is Kimberly Verkerk.

The municipal planning commission considered the original development permit application in July.

The commission then denied the application, citing two reasons:

• That insufficient information was provided specific to: fencing to prevent trespassing on adjacent land, example of signs, how posted, drawing or sketch of how it will look, actual development taking place (specifics about sites, site development, road width); safety concerns regarding emergency access criteria and security, road network though adjacent property (emergency access) and gates; unknown enforcement issues related to development – RCMP availability, how to enforce the site, security.
• That the proposed development did not meet two sections of the Bearberry/Red Deer River Corridor Area Structure Plan (7.1.10 and 7.10.5).

Section 7.1.10 reads: “The Bentz Lake Natural Area (where the property is located) shall remain a natural preserve. Any development that may be approved on lands adjacent to the natural area shall be set back a sufficient distance from the boundaries in order to help maintain the character and integrity of the natural area.

Section 7.10.5 reads: Commercial uses may be permitted in the plan area if the county is satisfied that the proposed development would meet the following: the form, scale, and integrity of the proposed development is compatible with adjacent land use.

In a letter to the appeal board, the appellant said in regard to the first reason for denial of the original application: “The applicant had understood that the application was complete. The applicant was not aware of any further information being required until the MCP issued its decision.”

In the same letter and in regard to the second reason for denial of the original application, the appellant said, in part, “The proposed development reconciles the potentially conflicting goals of preserving natural space maintaining and developing recreational and business opportunities.

“The subject property is surrounded by agricultural lands which are primarily used as grazing lands. There will be no negative impacts on these parcels by the proposed development, nor will the approved activities on those other parcels negatively affect the proposed development.”

The appeal board received a letter signed by four former members of the Bearberry/Red Deer River Corridor Area Structure Plan regarding the proposal.

In the letter, the former members (David Wells, Kathie Morris, Leanne Hudson and Nila Stringer) said, in part, “Our main concern is with the campground and the number of sites this property has the potential to hold. There are a lot of positives with this plan, but the number of campsites and future number is cause for concern.”

In its Sept. 13 decision, the appeal board cited five reasons for its ruling, including the following:

• The board has determined that the proposed development is a suitable use for the area and complementary to existing development on the lands.
• The board has determined that the proposed development will not impact the natural features of the area, nor the Bentz Lake Natural Area as contemplated within the area structure plan.
• The board determined that the proposed development is supported by the area structure plan in relation to the economic and recreational benefits of the proposed development.
• Although the board accepts that the proposed development may have raised concerns from adjacent landowners, the board accepts that the rules and regulations as outlined by the appellant, and the conditions included with the permit, have addressed and will mitigate concerns that were raised.
• The board determined that any information previously listed by the development authority as outstanding has now been submitted and is satisfactory to the board.

The appeal board’s decision could itself be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal.