MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - The county’s subdivision and development appeal board has held a hearing regarding the earlier refusal of a subdivision application of an Bergen-area parcel from agriculture to agricultural 2A.
The original subdivision application was refused by the municipal planning commission on Nov. 18, with the appeal hearing held on Dec. 9 in person and online.
The purpose of the original application was to subdivide out one, 18.4-acre agricultural parcel from the 158-acre property located at SW 2-32-6-5.
In refusing the application, the municipal planning commission cited four reasons: that the application doesn’t comply with the Municipal Government Act; doesn’t meet the requirements of the municipal development plan; doesn’t meet the requirements of the Bergen-area structure plan; and that the proposal does not meet the requirement of the agricultural district (A) parcels according to the land use bylaw.
In appeal to the subdivision and development appeal board, the applicant made a written submission, stating: “We feel we were not properly represented by the contractor we hired to represent us during the subdivision process. He informed council of a tree farm and potential greenhouse but did not mention our business or actual use of land.
“(We) started a new business, Canadian Green Thumb Ltd., in early 2020, we designed, manufactured and tested a year round hydroponic grow room capable of growing a large variety of plant species including indigenous plant species.”
The applicant cites several reasons for the proposed subdivision (from written submission), including:
• Our accountant suggested buying a piece of land to do this one bu being a start up and having already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars we can’t financially afford to purchase additional land.
• We would like the ability to set up an operating line of credit with the land separate from our farming operation and welding business.
• The 18.48-acre area is the only place we are to stay back from Community Creek (on the property).
“I wish all of this had been presented to the original council so they could have been well informed of why we wanted to do it (subdivide),” the applicant told the board.
In response to the appeal, the planning and development department called on the appeal board to uphold the refusal, citing the same four reasons cited during the November municipal planning commission hearing.
A ruling from the board is expected later this month.
