MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY – The county's subdivision and development appeal board has heard an appeal of an earlier municipal planning commission denial of a proposed expansion of an RV park in the Eagle Valley rural district.
The hearing was held in council chambers and by teleconference on Oct. 13. The subdivision and development appeal is made up of appointed public members and county councillors.
Forest Heights Golf & Country Club Ltd. applied for an additional 30 RV sites at its RV facility.
The property involved is located about 10 kilometres north of Highway 27 on Rge. Rd. 44 and Twp. Rd. 340, at NW 32-33-4-5.
There are currently 20 seasonal RV sites on the property, which is zoned Parks & Recreation District.
On Sept. 3 the commission heard the development permit application for the proposed additional spaces.
During that hearing, administration said it could not support the application as both the land use bylaw and the Eagle Valley area structure plan require that the setbacks identified by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), for development near sour gas facilities, be adhered to and at 1,500 metres the applicants will not be able to satisfy the setback requirement on the property for the 30 additional sites.
As well administration said it could not support the application because it did not meet conditions of either the Land Use Bylaw or the Eagle Valley Area Structure Plan Bylaw No. 47/97.
Six commission members voted to reject the permit application.
Forest Heights appealed the commission's ruling and the appeal was heard by the subdivision and development appear board on Oct. 13.
Appellant David Bach said Forest Heights was in compliance with all regulations and should be allowed to go forward with the expansion.
“We do not feel that the municipal development board heard all the information required to make an informed decision,” said Bach. “We feel the decision would be different if matters were clear regarding the rules of the Alberta Energy Regulator and the history of our business.
“Mountain View County is our regulator and we feel that we have met all the requirements required and look forward to a positive decision for Forest Heights, MVC and the community.
“Further, we do not feel it is fair to re-classify our business as a public facility from unrestricted county development after over 20 years especially since we do not even meet the definition of public facility.”
The county has “already clearly stated many times in the past that the pipeline does not negatively impact our development,” he said.
Forest Height emergency response plan is in place and is adequate to meet needs, he said.
The RV park is not open to the public, not a public facility and therefore does not need be referred to the AER, he said.
“We are unrestricted country development and if you continue to see it that way, as we are now, referral to the AER is not required,” he said.
No letters of support for the appeal were received during the circulation process, members heard.
The municipal planning commission, responding to the appeal, called on the subdivision and development appeal board to uphold the denial of the proposed expansion.
Peggy Grochmal, permitting and development officer with Mountain View County spoke on behalf of the respondent.
She said as the location of the RV sites is approximately 560 metres from the pipeline, and unable to meeting AER’s setback requirement, administration, as per the Land Use Bylaw specific use regulations Section 10.17, cannot support the expansion of the recreational resort.
“Due to the proximity of the sour gas facilities and the history of the development on the site, the AER was circulated and AER responded that the pipeline has a level 3 designation and therefore requires a 1,500 setback for the campground expansion,” she said.
In a letter in support of upholding the municipal planning commission rejection of the proposed expansion, one area resident said, in part, that, “The chief reason that this appeal should be denied is that an additional 30 sites will clearly and unequivocally constitute a public facility as the total number of RV sites would be raised to 50, meaning that that would be a minimum of 50 people in the camping area.
“Should an emergency ever arise, should injury or death occur, any ensuing lawsuit would fall against Mountain View County. In light of such a possibility, approving this appeal would simply be irresponsible.”
A second area resident also sent a letter in support of upholding the municipal planning commission rejection of the proposed expansion.
The appeal board has 14 days to release its decision on the appeal.
