Mountain View County subdivision and development appeal board has denied the appeal of the earlier approval of the expansion of Camp Evergreen south of Sundre.
The board issued its ruling on July 17, upholding the decision of the municipal planning commission to allow the expansion.
The expansion includes a new lodge with a wastewater treatment plant setback variance. The development permit was approved by the municipal planning commission approval authority on May 16.
The $4.7-million project would see the construction of a two-storey, 14,000-square-foot building near existing buildings at the camp.
Eighteen people attended a July 4 appeal hearing, which was held in county council chambers.
An appeal of the commission approval was held in council chambers on July 4, with appellants Gary and Barbara Labute saying they have a number of concerns with the expansion, including impacts on area wildlife, increasing traffic and dust on Rge. Rd. 52, increasing number of trespassers, increased noise, and increasing the risk of pollution in the Fallentimber Creek.
The appeal notice reads, in part, that, “the proposed development and expansion of Camp Evergreen does not fit the characteristics of the area. The land surrounding Camp Evergreen is primarily agricultural and light recreational. There are very few full time year-round residents in the area.
“This has created a diverse wildlife corridor consisting of elk, moose, grizzly bears, black bears, cougars and deer. The proposed development at Camp Evergreen would significantly increase the number of campers and year-round staff accessing the area increasing the potential for human-wildlife conflict.”
During the hearing, four people spoke in support of the appellant, and Camp Evergreen board member Don Quapp and director Bob Krocker spoke on behalf of the applicant.
“We will continue striving to be good stewards of our land,” said Krocker. “Camp Evergreen has always been willing to work with the county and our neighbours. We want to be good neighbours.”
The camp is prepared to address concerns regarding water, wastewater, traffic, dust, noise and any other matters, he said.
In rejecting the appeal, the board gave seven reasons for its decision, including the following (quoted from the decision):
• The board determined that the existing development has coexisted on the lands for over 56 years with little to no history of conflict with adjacent land users and has contributed to the development of, and has been compatible with, the rural character of the plan area for that time period.
• The board determined that as the proposed development does not substantially increase the amount of guests that will be present on the lands, and that as there was insufficient evidence to support how the proposed development will impact adjacent land users through the introduction or expansion of undesirable effects such as noise, light or dust, that it is a suitable and compatible discretionary use for the lands.
• The board determined that the addition and revised conditions clarifying the scope of dust control suppression and outlining the prohibition of public access systems will alleviate concerns raised by adjacent landowners relative to dust and noise caused by the proposed development.
• The board determined that the existing development has a documented history of natural environmental preservation and that the applicant has appropriately considered the impact that the proposed development will have on the environmental components of the lands and instituted appropriate measures to mitigate any potential issues.
• The board determined that upon receiving ministerial approval, that the setbacks proposed for the wastewater treatment system are acceptable for the proposed development and determined that there was insufficient evidence provided to support that a setback relaxation would unduly affect adjacent land uses.
• The board determined that as the proposed development contemplates the construction of sufficient kitchen and dining facilities for the existing number of guests, that the existing kitchen and dining facilities should no longer be required and therefore decommissioned.
The board also added 15 additional conditions to those conditions already outlined by the municipal planning commission.
Those new conditions include that “no public address systems will be installed or permitted to be used at Camp Evergreen” and that the landowner will install appropriate signage on the boundary of the lands outlining property lines and facing into the subject property, noting that "trespassing on private property is not permitted,” and the applicant will “ensure that within 12 months of completion of the lodge that the existing kitchen and dining room are decommissioned so as not to be used for commercial cooking or serving purposes.”
The appellant could appeal the board's decision to the provincial Court of Appeal.
The complete appeal board ruling is available for viewing on the county’s website.
There were a total of 4,450 guests at Camp Evergreen in 2018.
