MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - The county’s subdivision and development appeal board has denied an appeal of a development permit approved on Oct. 6 for a $450,000 private athletic training facility for multi-sport athletes in the Westerdale area in Division 4.
The property involved is located on the west side of Rge. Rd. 31 about two kilometres north of Twp. Rd. 320. The permit is for business, contractor - private athletic training for multi-sport athletes within accessory building - shop with setback relaxation.
The facility will include a 13,000-square foot building. The indoor athletic training facility will feature a full baseball infield, located on the northeast corner of the property.
The appeal was heard on Nov. 22 at a subdivision and development appeal board hearing held in council chambers. The board issued its ruling on Dec. 6.
Appellants Jason and Michelle Finnigan had cited a number of concerns, including that the roads at the location are not built to accommodate increased traffic that would come with the new business.
The applicant and landowner, Christopher and Kayla Grudeski, told the board that the proposed new business is well suited for the location and would provide a valuable service to local youth.
In its decision to deny the appeal, the subdivision and development appeal board cited nine reasons, including the following:
• The board accepts that the appellants have concerns relative to the increase traffic that should be expected by the proposed development and therefore has made the determination to enact an appropriate route, which has been agreed to by the landowner that will be most affected. Although the board accepts the appellants concerns, it determined that as the road met the appropriate standards as confirmed by the county’s operational services department, that the remainder of Rge. Rd. 31 needed to access the proposed development is suitable.
• The board determined that although the alternative classification proposed by the appellant of a “Recreational Services, Indoor Participant” may be appropriate for the proposed development, the scope of the proposed development is inconsistent with the comparable uses contemplated by that definition.
• The board determined that other concerns raised by the appellants that should be expected to be incurred by the proposed development, such as noise and light impacts, were unsubstantiated by satisfactory evidence and do not pose an impact significant enough to warrant the imposition of additional conditions.
• The board confirmed that the proposed development does not have a negative impact on the surrounding area and is consistent with the uses outlined within the county’s land use bylaw and as such is complaint with the economic development objectives for home occupations as outlined within Mountain View County Bylaw 20/20.
The board also amended the municipal planning commission decision, including that, “The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall ensure that a maximum of 16 parking stalls are provided within the indicated area on the applicant’s site plan. No parking of vehicles shall be permitted within county road allowances at any time, nor at any other location on the lands.
“No dogs or animals shall be permitted to be brought onto the property by clientele visiting the Business, Contractors – Private Athletic Training for Multi-Sport Athletes.”
The subdivision and development appeal board is made up of county council members and appointed public members.
