Mountain View County fought it at every turn ñ but in the end the Elsner subdivision has been granted approval by a higher authority.In an Oct. 28 decision, the Alberta Municipal Government Board ruled in favour of Jack and Cindy Elsner's subdivision application for 12 one-acre lots on 22 acres southeast of Sundre.The subdivision had been refused on April 21 by the county's Municipal Planning Commission after then-reeve Paddy Munro, not sitting as an MPC member, spoke as an affected resident in opposition. The planning department, under former director Diana Hawryluk, had recommended approval.The MGB decision, which is binding, overturns the commission's refusal of the subdivision and effectively upholds Hawryluk's original recommendation.ìThe MGB finds that the site is suitable for the intended purpose of the subdivision, subject to conditions of approval,î the board order says in its reasons for decision.ìStormwater management and disposal issues, emergency access, and road access can be handled by way of the conditions of approval. In addition,î the order goes on, ìthe proposed subdivision is in compliance with the Land Use Bylaw, Municipal Development Plan and (Southeast Sundre) Area Structure Plan.îMPC had refused the application mainly ìdue to stormwater and drainage issuesî and because it concluded that stormwater collection and disposal did not conform to one of the two draft reports prepared by Komex International Ltd. in 2000 and 2001, which Munro had presented at the meeting.However, the MGB's lead finding states: ìThere are several practical solutions for dealing with stormwater management and disposal.îIn its conditions for approval, the MGB also adheres to the original conditions presented by the county's planning department in March, rejecting terms that had been added in a later submission in August.One of the added terms stipulated that a drainage plan be undertaken ìin accordance with the Komex reports.î Since the Komex reports had never been adopted, the MGB points out, the developer's own concept plan that was approved by the previous council in September 2010 has more authority.The two Komex reports, the MGB notes, ìare not statutory documents and, therefore, the proposed subdivision does not have an obligation to be consistent with the two Komex reports. That said, the proposed subdivision does comply with bothî reports.Originally scheduled for June, the appeal hearing was postponed after the county challenged the MGB's jurisdiction, arguing the county's own subdivision and development appeal board should hear it instead.The jurisdictional hearing was held on July 29 at Olds College, with lawyer Sheila McNaughtan arguing the county's case. Hawryluk, who by then had left her position in what was described as ìa mutual professional parting of ways,î gave evidence at the hearing supporting the Elsners' argument that the MGB should hear the appeal.The MGB ruled against the county's position, agreeing with the Elsners that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as a water body ìis, at minimum, adjacent to the subject lands.îThe appeal itself was heard on Aug. 25, with Munro and two other landowners giving testimony in opposition to the subdivision. At one point during the hearing, the three-member MGB panel briefly intervened after Munro squared off with the Elsners' lawyer, David Smitten.The county planning commission received the MGB order at last Thursday's meeting without comment from members.On Friday, Reeve Bruce Beattie called the outcome disappointing.ìI'm disappointed that the decisions were taken out of the hands of the local municipality and ended up being made by a provincial body,î Beattie told the Gazette.ìI prefer local rather than provincial decisions,î he added, ìbecause there's a better understanding of local issues and local conditions.î
