FOOTHILLS COUNTY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD Box 5605 High River, Alberta T1V 1M7 Phone: 403-652-2341 Fax: 403-652-7880 [email protected] AGENDA Tuesday, June 29, 2021 12:50 PM A. Call Meeting to Order 1. HEARD AT 1:00 p.m.: Landowner/Applicant: Igor & Olga Kovalchuk and Barkhas Batbayar Appellants: Igor Kovalchuk DESCRIPTION: Appeal against the Refusal of Development Permit 21D 024 for a Temporary Structure LEGAL: PTN: NE 26-22-04 W5M Pg. 2 – Notice of Appeal Package Pg. 7 – Development Authority Decision Pg. 8 – Written Submissions Chairman: G. Beacom Board Members: RD McHugh, C. Stormes, V. LaRocke, D. Larson Page 1 FOOTHILLS COUNTY 309 Macleod Trail, Box 5605 High River, Alberta T1V 1M7 Phone: 403-652-2341 Fax: 403-652-7880 www.FoothillsCountyAB.ca [email protected] May 25, 2021 Igor & Olga Kovalchuk Barkhas Batbayar Dear Sir/Madam: Re: Development Permit Application 21D 024 Ptn: NE 26-22-04 W5M Temporary Structure for Farm Help Your development permit application for the above-noted operation has been refused for the attached reasons. Please be advised that you have the right to appeal this decision to the Development Appeal Board. If you were to appeal the above decision, the Development Appeal Board would base their decision on an appeal hearing which would be open to the applicant and to any landowners who have concerns about the proposed development. Please note that there is an appeal fee of $100.00. You can submit your Appeal notices to the Secretary of the Development Appeal Board at the Municipal office, noted above. Notices of Appeal, including payment of the appeal fee are to be received no later June 16, 2021. Notices of Appeal received after the 21-day notification period will be invalid. If you choose to submit an appeal, please complete the enclosed ‘Notice of Development Appeal’ form and mail, drop off, email to [email protected] or fax to 403-652-7880. We will notify you when your appeal is received. Should you have any further questions or concerns, please contact the undersigned at the above address and telephone number. NOTE: APPEAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ARE OUTLINED ON THE ENCLOSED ‘NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPEAL’ FORM Yours truly, FOOTHILLS COUNTY Brenda Bartnik Development Officer [email protected] (403) 603-6222 BB/de Enel. Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, We are appealing our development permit application refusal for reasons that your Planning and Development Department: 1. failed its duty to provide us with adequate information on your ByLaw, on Environmental Reserve and its mapping. 2. acted on behalf of Alberta Environment and Parks when they haven’t expressed any concerns 3. devalued our land from country residential to agriculture by ruling out all permanent and temporary dwelling development proposals 4. acted promptly on racist neighbor's complaints 5. treated us with double standards Specifically, on the reasons for refusal: 1. On the compatibility of the general use for the district - since all locations for residential development were ruled out for us, the agricultural use was the only remaining use. 2. On the use of the property for agricultural purposes: your discretion is arbitrary, since "limited" agricultural operations is not well-defined. Limited to what? The land size, the amount of time we spend doing it? Where are the limits defined? And why did you decide that our use will not require temporary accommodations of farm help? We think we should decide whether we need such help or not. 3. On the development in the flooding area - again, this is very vague. The statuary documents you describe provides direction to decrease the development, not to ban it. Currently, there is no development there. And, the word "discourages" that Bylaw is using does not mean "forbids". Some specific events that preceded your decision: As part of our land purchase due diligence, we started working with your Planning and Development Officer Logan Cox from August 10th, and on August 31st, we came in to understanding that the 18.4 acres property of our interest can be subdivided in to 3 plots and were notified that Environmental Reserve (ER) along the creek would have to be dedicated, and that this area can not be less than 6 meters on both sides of the creek. As a result, three parties proceeded with purchase of the land and hired All-Can Engineering and Surveys. But after removal of all our purchase conditions, on September 10th, Logan Cox informed us that he spoke with his mapping department and they have expressed they would anticipate ER would be significantly larger and a professional report could be completed to appropriately delineate the area needing to be protected. On October 7th, Logan Cox contradicted again to his prior setback statement that 15 m is accurate as of today’s date when compared to the internal mapping software and road classification and instead opted for 38 m. On October 10th, we presented Logan Cox with the professional report and made another development proposal near the ephemeral drainage channel. On October 14th, Logan Cox presented us with the information that in contrary to the previously proposed ER 6 m setback required, the following was proposed: On a lot adjacent to a water body where the bed and shore is crown owned such as a river, creek, and/or lake, a minimum setback of 30.0m (98.43 ft.) from the top of bank to any development shall be required to reduce environmental impacts and manage risk. On October 15th, Logan Cox relaxed the new setback to 22.5 m which was not enough for the proposed development and therefore, we asked for a meeting with the county. Page 5 On October 29th meeting, we were provided with another blow - Priddis Dam spillway mapping further restricting possible developmental sites. On November 23rd, we provided Logan Cox with his requested Alberta Environment & Parks consent. On December 4th, we received from Logan Cox the Provincial Flood Mapping - the final blow to our last and third development proposal. But since it didn't affect the ephemeral drainage channel area, we decided to go with our only left option which is an allowed by the Bylaw temporary structure not placed on a permanent foundation to be used for farm help purposes. On May 25th, we received a letter from development officer Brenda Bartnik stating that our temporary structure’s development permit was refused for the reasons that the proposed development is not compatible with general use of the district and use of property for agriculture use is limited due to the influence of Priddis creek and recurring streams that traverse the property, and potentially adverse effects on effects on Environmentally Significant Area. Additionally, Land Use Bylaw 60/2014 discourages new development on the lands that may be subject to flooding. So, in summary, you basically ruled out all other uses of our land, except limited agriculture. On June 1st, when we received a call from Brenda Bartnik and expressed our frustration, she said that agriculture and farming are still allowed and followed up with email confirmation. Sincerely, Igor and Olga Kovalchuk Barkhas Batbayar Page 6 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECISION DATE OF DECISION: MAY 25, 2021 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER: 21D 024 LANDOWNER(S): IGOR & OLGA KOVALCHUK AND BARKHAS BATBAYAR APPLICANT(S): SAME PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: TEMPORARY STRUCTURE FOR FARM HELP LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PTN. NE 26-22-04 W5M LOCATION: The subject property is an existing 18.4 acre Country Residential District parcel that is located adjacent to the east side of Priddis Creek Drive, and bounded by 162nd Avenue west on the north and Highway #22 on the south. Priddis Creek DR Subject Property Highway #22 BACKGROUND OR INTENT OF APPLICATION: In order to bring a 12 ft. x 60 ft. modular office trailer that has been located on the property into compliance with the County’s Land Use Bylaw, the applicants have submitted application requesting approval for a temporary structure to be used for farm help purposes. An outline identifying as to how interior layout will support use as a Dwelling Unit and plans for finishing the exterior of the subject trailer have been provided. Dwelling, Temporary is a Discretionary Use under the Country Residential District. The application for a Development Permit in accordance with the provisions of Land Use Bylaw 60/2014 of Foothills County in respect of Dwelling, Temporary for Farm Help at PTN. NE 26-22-04 W5M has been considered by the Development Officer and is REFUSED for the following reasons: REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposed development is not compatible with the general purpose of the District. - In residential districts, the principal building on each lot is intended be a Dwelling, Single Family. Accessory uses should be considered only where a permitted Dwelling, Single Family is located on the lot. 2. Use of the property for agricultural purposes (farming) is limited. - The definition for Agricultural General under Land Use Bylaw 60/2014 denotes systems of tillage and animal husbandry which involves methods used on large areas of land. Agricultural operations on this land would appear to be limited due to the influence of Priddis Creek and recurring streams that traverse the property. Thus, the requirement for temporary accommodation for farm help over and above the permitted Dwelling, Single Family seems unwarranted. 3. Potential adverse effect(s) on an Environmentally Significant Area; and the application is contrary to the statutory documents that provide direction to decrease the overall density of development on lands that may be subject to flooding. - The Municipal Development Plan 2010 provides direction to ensure that impact on surface and sub- surface water resources is minimized.