Skip to content

Turned down once, Eagle Hill applicant begs for subdivision approval

Board hears appeal of MPC decision
mountain-view-county-news

MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY – Mountain View County’s subdivision and development appeal board has heard an appeal of a refusal of a proposed subdivision to create a five-acre parcel located in the Eagle Hill rural neighbourhood.

The hearing took place by teleconference on July 29.

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, appellant 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. If I can’t have this approved we have no money to move our mobile and no place to move it to. A subdivision would also give mom a home to come home to once she has moved to a lodge, if that time comes. I’m praying you will all understand my desperation.”

Acting as respondent to the appeal, the county cited four reasons that the refusal should be upheld:

• That the proposal did not achieve redesignation to an appropriate land use district and therefore is not in compliance with the municipal development plan.

• The proposal did not achieve redesignation to an appropriate land use district and there is not compliance with the Municipal Government Act.

• That the municipal development plan requires an application to be subject to redesignation and/or subdivision, and the application did not achieve redesignation and is not in compliance with that statutory document.

• The land within the five-acre parcel is zoned agricultural district. In the agricultural district within the land use bylaw the minimum parcel size is 80 acres and this parcel does not comply with the minimum parcel requirement.

The board did not receive any letters in support or opposed to the appeal, members heard.

The subdivision and development appeal board must issue its ruling on the appeal by Aug. 13.





Comments