MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - The county’s municipal planning commission (MPC) approving authority has refused a subdivision application to subdivide three lots within an existing 10-acre parcel in the Reed Ranch area.
The move came by way of motion at the commission’s recent regularly scheduled meeting, held in person and online.
The subject land is located along Township Road (Twp. Rd.) 334, also known as the Wimborne Road, approximately 25 kilometres northeast of Olds.
The three proposed lots were 1.46 acres, 1.58 acres and 2.28 acres in size within SE 25-33-28-4.
In a presentation to the commission, administration cited five reasons for refusal of the application.
• The proposal does not comply with the Municipal Government Act (MGA), Section 654(1)(b) as it does not conform to the provisions of the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) Bylaw No. 20/20, and the Land Use Bylaw (LUB) No. 10/24.
• The proposal does not comply with the Matters Related to Subdivision and Development Regulation, including that access to the proposed parcels is intended to be provided through an access easement agreement through proposed Lot #1, which does not meet the standards for accessibility, in accordance with section 616(aa) of the MGA (Section 9(e) and county standards.
• The proposal does not meet the requirements of the municipal development plan, including that proposals for higher density residential development (5 lots or greater) shall have legal and physical access to a county road via a paved or chip sealed internal road, however, the application proposed an easement through the remnant lands to provide access to the proposed parcels and does not provide direct legal and physical access to county standards.
• The proposal does not meet the requirements for Country Residential District (R-CR) parcels or dwelling density requirements according to the LUB, including that three of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum parcel size requirement for Country Residential District (R-CR) parcels, the current designation of the parent parcel (minimum 3 acres).
• The proposal does not meet the requirements of Policy #4005 – Road Template Policy in that the application is proposing an access easement agreement, using the existing gravel driveway within the proposed remainder (Lot #1) to provide access to Lots #2, #3, and #4, which does not meet the standards outlined within the procedure for residential subdivision internal roads.
In a letter received by the commission, the applicant said, “I would like to remind everyone that there are already 350-plus acreages zoned county residential in Mountain View County (that) are under two (acres) and they as far as I can see function just as adequately as any of the larger parcels.
“Many purchasers of acreages move to the country and find that the larger acreages are just too much work and last about three years or less. I would hope that my potential neighbours and friends will be there for the long term.”
Commission members did not pose any questions for planning or administration during the Nov. 21 meeting nor did the applicant speak during the session.
The municipality’s approving authority, the MPC is made up of county councillors and appointed members of the public.
