Skip to content

Appeal rulings favour county

Two separate appeal rulings have come down in favour of Mountain View County.In the first case, the Municipal Government Board denied an appeal by Peter and Wendy Dichrow, who challenged a condition of subdividing a 4.

Two separate appeal rulings have come down in favour of Mountain View County.In the first case, the Municipal Government Board denied an appeal by Peter and Wendy Dichrow, who challenged a condition of subdividing a 4.18-acre country-residential parcel from their unsubdivided quarter (SW 28-32-4-W5M).The disputed condition required the applicants to construct an access road to conform to the county's seven-metre-wide minor farm access road standard.The appellants requested the road be kept to a single-lane access with a four-metre top, arguing that the reduced width would also minimize the amount of trees to be removed.ìIt is the appellants' submission that there have never been two vehicles on that road, nor have there been any issues with oncoming traffic as it is a dead end road with just the appellants and one adjacent landowner using the road,î the board wrote in its order, dated Feb. 24.In denying the appeal, the board noted that council had adopted a policy specifying road standards countywide.ìThe MGB found insufficient reasons to depart from these standards,î the order said.The minor farm access standard, said the order, ìwill help insure the safety of the public on the road. While the appellant stated that they want the road to remain as is, the MGB is cognizant of the likelihood that the nature of vehicle use will change as the parcel is going from agricultural use to country residential.îThe appeal was made before the MGB because the Little Red Deer River and other seasonal creeks run through the subject property.In the second case, the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board denied an appeal by Ken Taylor on behalf of Norman Wallace and Sandra Van Dongen after council refused their application to redesignate a 20-acre ag parcel from an unsubdivided quarter (NW 30-32-28-W4M).Noting there was nothing to stop the owners from constructing a residence on the site, the board found the proposed subdivision ìhas the potential of impacting the surrounding landî and could ìbe an intrusion into the neighbourhood.îSince council had refused the redesignation and the Municipal Planning Commission subsequently denied the subdivision application, ìthe board sees nothing compelling in the arguments to overturn those decisions,î it said in an order released last week.ìThe board is concerned that this is a subdivision without a purpose,î the order said. ìThe proposed parcel is too large for a residence and too small for an agricultural operation.îThe appellants have 30 days from the issuance of the decision to seek leave to appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction.





Comments