MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - A subdivision and development appeal board (SDAB) has upheld the decision of Mountain View County's administrative subdivision and development approving authority to refuse a development permit for a proposed industrial storage and warehousing facility outside Carstairs.
The SDAB heard the appeal on March 21 and issued its ruling last week.
The applicant had submitted a site plan displaying 227 parking stalls of various sizes, and this development is proposed for the storage of no more than 227 consisting of recreational vehicles, trailers, vehicles and up to 200 shipping containers.
On Feb. 11, 2025 the approving authority refused the proposed development, saying the applicant did not obtain written consent from all the landowners affected by the restrictive covenant on the site.
“The applicant is required to submit developer approval as a requirement of the restrictive covenant register on the title as instrument agricultural control guidelines,” the authority said.
“One of the restrictions is that all proposals have to meet the approval of Rainbow Highway Industrial Park Design Committee as established from time to time by the developer or, in the event of his demise, by all the owners of lots in the said lands.”
In the appeal, the appellant said, in part, that he “received support from four of the parcels listed under the restrictive covenant to proposed with his proposed development and unable to make contact with other owners due to the inaccessibility of contact information for those parcels.”
In its April 1 ruling, the SDAB cited four reasons for its decision to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the original approving authority:
• The board determined that the lands and proposed development are subject to requirements presented in the restrictive covenant registered to title which requires approval from the design approval committee of Rainbow Highway Industrial Park prior to proceeding with Mountain View County's consideration of the proposed development.
• The board determined that the appellant did not provide confirmation that the design approval committee of Rainbow Highway Industrial Park has approved the proposed development.
• The board determined that Section 9.4 (2) of Mountain View County Land Use Bylaw No. 10/24 provides direction that as the proposed development is not compliant with that requirement in the restrictive covenant that the appellant is required to obtain written consent from all landowners affected by the same restrictive covenant. The board accepts the determination from the appellant and respondent that this requirement has not been met.
• The board determined that there was insufficient rationale provided by the appellant to justify the board varying section 9.4 (2)(b) of Mountain View County Land Use Bylaw No. 10/24 which explicitly requires for an approving authority to deny a development permit application if the applicant does not provide the required written consent from all landowners affected by the restrictive covenant.
The appellant could appeal the SDAB decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
