MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY – The county’s subdivision and development appeal board denied an appeal of an earlier refusal of a proposed subdivision to create one five-acre parcel in the Eagle Hill rural neighbourhood.
The appeal hearing took place by teleconference on July 29 and the decision has now been released.
The applicant, Glenys Vickery, had requested a farmstead separation from an existing 158.97 acre parcel located at SE 36-33-4-5. It was refused by the municipal planning commission in a June 18 decision.
The commission found that the proposed parcel did not achieve redesignation to an appropriate land use district when presented to council on May 27 and therefore is not in compliance with the municipal development plan.
As well, the commission found that the proposed parcel does not conform to the provisions of the statutory plans and land use bylaw and therefore is not in compliance with the Municipal Government Act.
During the July 29 appeal board hearing, Vickery called on the board to overturn the commission’s decision.
“I’m begging you guys to please approve it,” said Vickery. “If we don’t get to keep this then the whole Vickery legacy is gone and my senior mother is going to have to move.”
She also provided a four-page letter to the commission. It reads, in part, “I’m pleading with my heart and soul to all of you to please approve this.”
In the ruling, the appeal board upheld the original refusal and denied the appeal, citing three reasons (quoted from the decision):
• The board determined that the land were not granted approval for redesignation and have thus retained their agricultural district zoning, the approval of the proposed subdivision would be in direct contravention of Mountain View County bylaw No. 09/12.
• The board determined that the impact of the proposed subdivision would have on the rural, agricultural character of the area and the promotion of agricultural land uses within the county would be greater than the benefit derived by the proposed subdivision.
• The board determined that the appellant is aware of other land use designations that may be better suited for the lands to accomplish their intent of subdivision.
The applicant could appeal the ruling to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
