MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY – The county's subdivision and development appeal board has rejected an appeal of an earlier municipal planning commission denial on a proposed expansion of a recreational vehicle (RV) park in the Eagle Valley rural district.
The appeal hearing was held in council chambers and by teleconference on Oct. 13, with the board issuing it’s ruling last week.
The subdivision and development appeal board 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 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.
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 feel the decision would be different if matters were clear regarding the rules of the Alberta Energy Regulator and the history of our business,” said Bach.
“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 RV park is not open to the public, not a public facility and therefore does not need be referred to the AER, he said.
In it’s ruling, the appeal board gave six reasons for its refusal of the appeal, including the following:
• The board determined that Section 10.17 (5)(a) of Mountain View County's land use bylaw grants administration the authority to utilize the definition of public facility as outlined by the AER and additional criteria including the response from the owner/operator of the sour gas facility to determine if a circulation to the AER is required on the file.
• The board determined that the definition of public facility within Mountain View County's land use bylaw or within AER directive 056 does not require a proposed development to demonstrate both an excess of 50 individuals and a necessity for additional transportation in the event of an evacuation, but rather that the legislation allows for either one or the other to cause the proposed development to be defined as a public facility.
• The board determined that regardless if a circulation is required, the evidence provided by the respondent on this specific application and through past applications by the appellant for various numbers of RV sites demonstrates that the AER has defined the proposed development as a public facility requiring a setback relaxation of 1,500 metres from the level 2 sour gas pipeline.
• The board determined that as the appellant acknowledges that the proposed development will accommodate more than 50 individuals, that it is a appropriately defined as a publiwc facility by Mountain View County's land use bylaw.
The appellants did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The Municipal Government Act allows the appellant to appeal the decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
