MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - The county's subdivision and development appeal board has denied an appeal of an earlier municipal planning commission (MPC) approval of a new RV storage facility south of Sundre.
In issuing its ruling, the board amended the original permit by adding several new conditions.
The board’s ruling came out Dec. 6 following an appeal board hearing held Nov. 23. The permit for recreational vehicle storage outdoor was granted on Oct. 7. It allowed for a total of 11 storage sites at the Rosewood Resort.
The permit approval was appealed by a number of landowners with properties near the site.
The appellants cited a number of reasons for the appeal, including that the original application was “very vague and poorly explained with a rudimentary site sketch," there were security concerns, a lack of landscaping proposed, a lack of clarity surrounding access, and a lack of clarity for the reasoning for a roadside development permit.
In its Dec. 6 ruling, the board cited 10 reasons for its decision, including the following (quoted from the decision):
• The board determined that the proposed development is appropriately defined as recreation vehicle storage outdoors by Bylaw No. 21/21 which is a discretionary use with the Parks and Recreation District.
• It is the board’s position that the proposed development was lesser in scope than the original circulation and that a secondary community engagement opportunity is unreasonable to expect from the applicant.
• The board determined that the additional conditions applied to the proposed development, including that there shall be no access from Doyle Drive and disallowance of camping within the proposed development, were suitable and will mitigate concerns posed by the adjacent landowners.
• The board determined that the security concerns raised by the appellant were not rendered due to the perceived impact that the proposed development will have on adjacent landowner security, but instead focused on security concerns associated with theft from the proposed development.
• The board determined that it was inappropriate to completely restrict the use of the storage area for a portion of the year and those permitted for the proposed development to be accessed year-round for the removal of vehicles with landowner permission.
• The board determined it was appropriate to require the applicant to update the emergency response plan associated with the existing development to take into account any further risks associated with the proposed development and any applicable mitigative measures to offset those risks.
In upholding the development permit, the board amended the decision of the MPC by adding a number of additional conditions.
Those new conditions include that the storage area be “limited to five sites that can accommodate up to two recreation vehicles, boats and/or utility trailers per site, and that the storage area access between Oct. 16 and April 30 shall be by appointment only and shall serve the purpose of removing and/or replacing vehicles in the storage area only.”
Prior to the issuance of the permit the applicant, landowner and/or operator “shall update the emergency response plan with Rosewood Resort to include the additional five sites and any mitigative actions required due to that addition.”
Under Section 688 of the provincial Municipal Government Act, the appellant could appeal the board’s decision to the provincial Court of Appeal.
