Skip to content

Commission approves permits, subdivisions

The Mountain View County municipal planning commission has approved subdivision and development permit applications in five divisions in the municipality. The moves came during the recent regularly scheduled commission meeting in council chambers.

The Mountain View County municipal planning commission has approved subdivision and development permit applications in five divisions in the municipality.  The moves came during the recent regularly scheduled commission meeting in council chambers.

The commission is made up of county councillors and appointed members of the public at large.

The commission approved a development permit for a proposed dwelling, secondary attached to an accessory building – shop and setback relaxation to existing structures.

The subject parcel is located southwest of the intersection of Twp. Rd. 340 and Rge. Rd. 61 in the James River rural neighourhood in Division 5 (at NE 35-33-6-5).

“As per the submitted application, the proposed dwelling, secondary detached will be located within the northwesterly corner of the parcel, not within the developed yard site,” administration said in a briefing note to the commission.

“The applicant mentions within their submission that the proposed dwelling location would have the least amount of impact on the existing agricultural operation. The applicant states that proposed location is adjacent to the road on the north side to easily accommodate utilities, access to development without impacting the agricultural lands and allows the applicant to assist with the agricultural operation.”

Administration supported the application.

The commission approved a development permit for a dwelling, secondary detached (manufactured, 2003) in the Eagle Hill-Westward Ho rural neighbourhood in Division 6 (SW 16-33-3-5).

The subject parcel is located northeast of the intersection of Rge. Rd. 34 and Twp. Rd. 332 in Division 6.

“The development on the parcel consists of a developed yard site with one dwelling,” administration said. “The applicant has submitted the second dwelling supplemental form and has stated that all the criteria have been met.

“The dwelling will be located slightly north within the developed yard site. Administration accepts that the majority of the criteria has been met with the proposed application as required within the land use bylaw.”

The parcel consists of an active well and multiple pipelines, but the proposed location for the secondary dwelling meets the required setbacks, members heard.

“Additionally, the proposed dwelling is not within the environmentally significant area identified on the subject property.”

Administration supported the application.

The commission approved a development permit for a proposed industrial storage and warehousing – salt/sand storage facility with setbacks and an existing warehouse building on a property in the Netook rural neighbourhood in Division 7.

The parcel is located approximately 3.5 kilometres east of the Town of Olds directly southwest of the interchange of Highway 27 and Highway 2 (at NE 35-32-1-5).

“The applicant is proposing a provincial highway maintenance business for the removal of snow and sanding roads in the winter and for general maintenance in the summer,” administration said.

“One new building will be built for this proposed development for the storage of equipment, vehicles and road maintenance chemicals such as salt, liquid anti-icing and sand.

“The proposed new building will be to the north of the existing building and located in the rear yard of the lot. There is no public retail component associated with the business.”

The reason given for the proposed rear yard (north) and side yard (east) setback relaxation to the proposed building is for the parking and loading of large trucks and materials and the manoeuvrability of the lot, members heard.

“The proposed building will be strictly for the storage of sands, salt, anti-icing chemicals and equipment/machinery because the existing building is being used as a shop and cannot accommodate the increased storage.

“The applicant is proposing to increase the paved area to the new building at the north of the lot in the areas where sand, salt and chemicals are being moved.”

The commission approved a development permit for a change of use for an existing accessory building storage to recreational service, indoor participant (escape room) and recreational service, outdoor participant (two 400-foot Slip 'N Slides).

The property involved is located in Division 2 about five kilometres west of Cremona on Rge. Rd. 50 and Twp. Rd. 295A in the Water Valley-Winchell Lake rural neighbourhood (at NW 36-29-5-5).

The owner is Rivers Edge Camping Association.

“The applicant is proposing to change the use of an existing accessory building currently used for storage to an escape room for public occupancy,” administration said. “A building permit will be necessary to ensure the building is appropriate for public recreational use.

“Materials and equipment used for the escape room will be props, games, surveillance cameras, computers and speakers.”

The applicant is proposing an additional Slip 'N Slide be built next to the first one and for a circulating water pump to be installed with them to prevent stagnant water sitting at the bottom of the slides. A permit was not issued for the first Slip 'N Slide so this permit will serve to bring both into compliance with the land use bylaw.”

Meanwhile, the commission rejected an application to create a 72.74-acre parcel in the Bergen rural neighbourhood in Division 4.

The application was to create a new agricultural parcel containing a developed residential site.

“This is a proposal to create the first parcel within a previously un-subdivided quarter section,” administration said.

“The applicant has proposed to create a new agricultural parcel that incorporates the existing developed yard site and the remainder of the quarter is undeveloped with a well site.”

Administration said it could not support a resolution of approval for this proposal “because the proposal does not have the appropriate agricultural 2 district zoning, nor does it meet the intent of the agricultural district.

“The proposal does not comply with the policies of the municipal development plan and the land use bylaw because the re-designation was refused by council.”

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks