MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - The province’s Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT) has denied an appeal of a decision of the Mountain View County subdivision authority regarding a proposed subdivision on a property southwest of Sundre.
The tribunal released its ruling following an earlier hearing after notifying interested parties. The decision was presented and accepted as information by the municipal planning commission at its recent regularly scheduled meeting.
The property involved is located on the north side of Township Road 320 approximately 18 kilometres southwest of Sundre.
According to the decision document, the appeal concerned the refusal of an application to subdivide 18.48 acres from a previously unsubdivided quarter section to be used for a horticultural business.
The subdivision authority refused the application because the proposal did not meet the county’s land use bylaw agriculture A district minimum 80-acre parcel area for new agricultural parcels, a requirement that was supported by policies in the county’s municipal development plan.
In addition, county council refused an application to redistrict the property to agriculture A2, which allows 40-acre parcels or less if approved by council.
The appellant requested the LPRT vary the parcel area requirement, arguing that since the area to be subdivided is not high-quality agricultural land, its use for a horticultural operation was consistent with the purpose of the municipal planning bylaws to preserve agricultural land.
In addition the applicant said a 40-acre parcel would make less efficient use of the land as it would include better agricultural land that would be separated from the rest of the quarter.
The LPRT found insufficient land use planning reasons to depart from the county policies and requirements, the decision states.
“The LPRT denied the appeal, noting that since council refused redesignation, the minimum parcel size remains 80 acres. This standard supports the municipal development plan and land use bylaw’s objective to preserve large agricultural parcels and prevent undue fragmentation.
“In this case, a subdivision is not necessary to pursue the proposed horticultural development, and the applicant’s arguments in support of the proposal focused largely on business requirements rather than land use planning.
“The LPRT is not convinced to use its authority to vary the size of the proposed parcel on this basis, since the council was not in favour of redesignation to allow for parcels less than 80 acres,” the decision states.
The appeal was heard by the tribunal rather than the county’s subdivision and appeal board because the Municipal Government Act directs subdivision appeal to the LPRT when the "subject land is in the Green Area or within prescribed distances of features of interest to provincial authorities, including a highway, body of water, sewage treatment, waste management facility or historical site.”
In this case, those circumstances apply due to wetlands located on the northeast portion of the quarter, north of the proposed parcel.
“As well, there is an unclassified creek run through the subject property and Community Creek runs through the quarter section from the southwest to the northeast.”
In issuing its ruling, the tribunal said it was encouraging the appellant to, in cooperation with the county, consider alternate planning and subdivision approaches which would facilitate the proposed development.
The complete LPRT decision is available for viewing on the county website.
