Country Residential 1 District landowners in Mountain View County now have more housing options available to them.
Council amended the Land Use Bylaw during last week's meeting to add back in moved in/relocated dwellings as a discretionary use in the district.
The discretionary use was removed from the bylaw in 2010 because it did not fit the vision of cluster residential development envisioned for the district, said planning services manager Margaretha Bloem.
Administration proposed the reversal after two recent applications for moved in/relocated dwellings were turned down by the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) and the commission's decisions were upheld by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB).
Without the use being prescribed for the district in the Land Use Bylaw, Reeve Bruce Beattie said MPC and the SDAB's hands were tied.
Jeff Holmes, SDAB secretary, said the SDAB members felt they had no choice but to refuse the applications “even though we felt it was an appropriate use of the land.”
Planning department staff were in favour of including the use in the district again as architectural controls would apply.
“As a discretionary use, the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) has the discretion to refuse a dwelling, moved in/relocation if the appearance and age would not fit within the surrounding area,” reported Bloem.
Because the use is already included in other districts, she pointed out that there are also criteria set out in the Land Use Bylaw for relocation of structures.
They allow the MPC to refuse a development permit if the dwelling's design, construction and finish is not visually compatible with the neighbourhood in general.
And if approved, she added that the decision would be advertised and any person affected by the decision could appeal it to the SDAB.
Lawrence Trenholm spoke in favour of the bylaw amendment during the public hearing portion of the meeting.
He was one of the two applicants that had their requests for moved in/relocated homes denied first by the MPC and then by the SDBA on Aug. 29.
Other types of previously-owned homes like mobile homes -- were already discretionary uses in the district, he said. As well, he said there are now many high quality move-in homes on the market, adding his proposal was for a custom estate home.
After passing second and third readings of the bylaw amendment, council also unanimously agreed to refund Trenholm and the other applicants -- Thomas and Krista Waterhouse -- the $425 fee they paid to have their appeals considered by the SDAB.
After considering both appeals on Aug. 29, the SDAB passed two motions to recommend to council that if the Land Use Bylaw is amended to include a moved-in dwelling as a use in the Country Residential (1) District that the appeal fees be refunded to the appellants.
