MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - The county’s subdivision and development appeal board (SDAB) has overturned an earlier development permit approval for a bunkhouse at an equestrian facility on Rge. Rd. 43 in the Westward Ho area east of Sundre.
The ruling came following several hearings, including the final one on March 1 with the ruling issued last week. The applicant was Timber River Station Inc. and the appellent was Lizabeth Leuschner.
The lands involved, located at SW 3-33-4-5, are designated agricultural district. Under the land use bylaw a bunkhouse is defined as a “building designed and used for accommodation of up to twenty workers and consisting of living, dining, washroom, and sleeping facilities, and shall be accessory to the agricultural activity on the site.”
The appellent made a number of arguments calling for the permit approval to be overturned, including that the bunkhouse was not required “since the existing manager was previously residing within another dwelling on the property, with a number of alternative options available for their residence.”
In its ruling the SDAB cited four reasons for overturning the earlier approval (quoted from ruling):
• The board determined that although there was sufficient information provided that the applicant has expanded outside their existing development permit which trends towards being of a commercial nature, largely due to the nature of the county’s pilot project, the board is required to only consider the proposed development in relation to previous approvals on the lands and is not intended to act as an enforcement body. (The county had approved a pilot project that allows for specific development to operate outside of their previous approvals which allowed the applicant to organize additional events than the maximums permitted by their approval).
• The board determined that as the proposed development is located outside of the environmentally significant area of the parcel and the applicant was unable to outline how it will be materially impacted, that is not a consideration the board is able to grant weight to.
• The board determined that although the proposed development is eligible to be classified as a bunkhouse as it would be accessory to the agricultural uses currently occurring on the lands, the board determined that the intent of the bunkhouse definitions is to permit solely for ‘workers’ required for the existing development and is not intended to be a dwelling. This is supported by the respondent’s position that the proposed development would not add further to the number of dwellings allocated on the quarter section of land.
• The board determined that as the proposed development is intended to house the children of the facility manager which is in addition to that individual, that it is the board’s position that the proposed development, intended to contain individuals residing within it that are not workers on the lands, crosses the line into becoming a dwelling and therefore cannot be defined as a bunkhouse, making it inappropriate for the lands.
The SDAB is made up of county councillors and appointed members of the public, including current chair Alana Gibson.
