LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TRIBUNAL  
Citation:  
Jenner 1 Limited Partnership v Special Area No. 2, 2022 ABLPRT 861  
Date:  
File No.  
2022-06-15  
D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
Municipality: Special Area No. 2  
In the matter of an appeal from a decision of Special Areas Board (Special Area No. 2) Development  
Authority (DA) respecting the proposed development of a wind farm project on various parcels within  
Townships 21 and 22, Range 8 under Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act, Chapter M-26 RSA  
2000, (Act).  
BETWEEN:  
Jenner 1 Limited Partnership  
Appellant  
- and -  
Special Areas Board (Special Area No. 2)  
Respondent Authority  
BEFORE:  
H. Kim, Presiding Officer  
B. McNeil, Member  
D. Piecowye, Member  
(Panel)  
K. Lau, Case Manager  
DECISION  
APPEARANCES  
See Appendix A  
Page 1  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
This is an appeal to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT or Tribunal) from a decision of the  
Special Areas Board (Special Area No. 2) Municipal Planning Commission (MPC), which is the  
Development Authority (DA) for the Special Areas Board (SAB), respecting an application for  
amendment of development permit (DP) SA2-16-17 affecting sections 3, 8, 14, 23, 27 and 28-21-8-W4M  
and sections 5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 21-22-8-W4M. The hearing was held via videoconference on June 1,  
2022, after notifying interested parties.  
OVERVIEW  
[1]  
This appeal concerns the refusal of an application for a DP amendment for a 122.4 MW wind  
power project (Project) originally issued in 2017 by the DA following an Alberta Utilities Commission  
(AUC) Approval. After the DP was issued, the Project had amendments approved by the AUC.  
[2]  
The subject DP application is to remove two conditions, which require adherence to the setbacks  
in the Land Use Order, March 3, 2015, Ministerial Order No. MSL: 007/15 (LUO), which is the land  
use bylaw for the SAB. The most recent AUC Approval locates four of the 22 wind turbines that make  
up the Project within a required setback area. The DA refused the application, stating it does not have the  
authority under the Act to approve the variance.  
[3]  
The LPRT determined the development with the setback relaxation will not have a material  
negative impact on neighbouring properties given the consent of the affected landowners and the minimal  
impact anticipated from the proposed development on agricultural uses in this case. Accordingly, the  
LPRT exercised its discretion to modify the conditions of the DP. The LPRT was also of the view the DA  
had authority under the Act to approve the application.  
PRELIMINARY MATTERS  
Request for Oral Decision  
[4]  
The Appellant requested the LPRT render an oral decision at the conclusion of the hearing with  
written reasons to follow, explaining that construction had ceased pending the outcome of this appeal, and  
it is necessary to resume construction as soon as possible. Issuing an oral decision would not prejudice  
any other party to the hearing and would benefit the Appellant, enabling it to maintain the construction  
schedule and contractual commitments. The Appellant noted that in Jenner 2 and Jenner 3 Limited  
Partnership v Special Area No. 2, 2022 ABLPRT 525 (Jenner 2 and 3), the LPRT issued an oral decision  
with reasons to follow, and submits that doing so in this case is equally appropriate.  
[5]  
[6]  
The DA stated that it had no objection to this request.  
The LPRT agreed with the request and issued its oral decision on June 1, 2022. This written  
decision confirms the oral decision and provides more fulsome reasons.  
REASON APPEAL HEARD BY LPRT INSTEAD OF SDAB  
[7]  
The appeal was filed with the LPRT instead of the local subdivision and development appeal  
board (SDAB) because s. 685(2.1)(a) of the Act and s. 2 of the Subdivision and Development Appeal  
Regulation (Regulation) direct development appeals to the LPRT when the land that is the subject of the  
application is the subject of a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the Natural  
Resources Conservation Board, Energy Resources Conservation Board, Alberta Energy Regulator,  
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, AUC or the Minister of Environment and Parks.  
Page 2  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
[8]  
In this case, the land that is the subject of the application is the subject of an approval granted by  
the AUC.  
PROPOSAL  
[9]  
To develop a wind farm project, Jenner Wind Power Project 1 (Project) with turbine locations  
shown on the map below, on the land having the legal descriptions in the table below:  
Sections  
3, 8, 14, 23, 27 and 28  
5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 21  
Township  
Range  
Meridian  
W4M  
W4M  
21  
22  
8
8
BACKGROUND  
[10] This appeal concerns the refusal  
of an application for an amendment to a  
DP for the Project, which was approved  
by the DA pursuant to AUC Approval  
21394-D01-2017. The original DP SA2-  
16-17 was approved in 2017. Subsequent  
to the DP approval, the project had  
various minor alterations arising from  
changes to turbine technology approved  
by the AUC, and extensions of the  
construction completion date, also  
approved by the AUC. The Appellant  
applied for corresponding time extensions  
and amendments to the DP as required,  
which were approved by the DA.  
[11]  
The relevant AUC Approval is  
26464-D02-2021, an amended approval  
for the Project granted on July 7, 2021. A  
DP amendment was applied for in August  
2021 and approved by the DA on  
September 16, 2021. The amended DP  
was subject to the same conditions as the  
original DP, and construction of the  
Project commenced in September 2021.  
[12]  
The land is districted Agricultural  
in the LUO, in which Wind Energy  
Conversion System - Commercial  
(WECS) is a discretionary use. DP SA2-  
16-17 approved for the Project was  
subject to the following conditions:  
Figure 1- Turbine locations (Subject Turbines circled in red)  
The Development Permit Application has been APPROVED and must adhere to all aspects  
of the Special Areas Land Use Order, Ministerial Order No. MSL:007/15 as well as the  
following conditions.  
Page 3  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
1) Public and stakeholder consultations undertaken as per the Special Areas Land Use  
Order, as well as consultations required by all other government departments and  
regulations:  
a) Completed, documented, and summarized;  
b) Made available upon request.  
2) Adjacent properties setback reduction agreements on Crown land require each  
quarter to have:  
a) Consent of occupant;  
b) SAB approval.  
This applies to wind towers.  
3) Crown land easements for collector lines, access roads, etc., require each quarter to  
have:  
a) Consent of occupant;  
b) SAB approval.  
4) Approved road use agreements with Special Areas:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During operational phase;  
c) During decommissioning.  
5) Approved road development agreements with Special Areas:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During decommissioning.  
6) Approved safety code permits, as required, from Palliser Regional Municipal  
Services for:  
a) Building permits;  
b) Plumbing and sewage disposal permits;  
c) Electrical permits;  
d) Gas permits;  
e) Other(s), as applicable.  
This applies to all structures/facilities such as: offices, shops, collector sites, towers,  
etc.  
7) Approved temporary laydown areas with land owner permission:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During decommissioning.  
8) Approved temporary staging areas with land owner permission:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During decommissioning.  
This will also require arrangements through an approved Special Areas Road Use  
Agreement and with Alberta Transportation.  
9) Ensure drainage runoff does not adversely affect neighboring lands:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During operational phase;  
c) During decommissioning.  
This applies to all permanent & temporary sites; towers, laydown areas, offices,  
shops, etc.  
10) Ensure garbage and debris is contained on site and properly disposed of at an  
approved waste transfer facility:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During operational phase;  
c) During decommissioning.  
Page 4  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
11) Disturbance and reclamation of all sites shall be completed in an environmental  
manner with:  
a) The standard being consistent with the "Reclamation Criteria for Well Sites and  
Associated Facilities";  
b) The restoration of grassland vegetative cover being completed utilizing species  
which provide assurance the site will achieve a community similar to the offsite  
control;  
c) The seed mix being free of noxious weeds;  
d) The development on Special Areas lands following Special Areas Board policy  
e) The standards being adhered to in all stages (preconstruction, construction,  
operation, decommissioning);  
f) The Developer providing the Development Authority, prior to construction, a  
detailed construction plan, including a post construction reclamation plan.  
12) All equipment entering project lands must be cleaned prior to arrival (free of dust,  
soil, plant materials, etc.) to reduce the spread or introduction of weed species or soil  
borne disease etc.  
13) Relocated soils, aggregate, or reclamation materials, must be preapproved by a  
Special Areas Agricultural Fieldman.  
14) Approvals from:  
a) AUC;  
b) Alberta Environment and Parks;  
c) Environment Canada;  
d) Transport Canada;  
e) NAV Canada;  
f) Alberta Transportation;  
g) Alberta Energy;  
h) Alberta Culture and Community Spirit;  
i) Any other approvals or requirements as determined necessary by the Municipal  
Planning Commission.  
15) Adherence to Special Areas Land Use Order Part VII, Section 49, (4);  
a) The applicant shall forward to the Development Authority copies of all  
regulatory and utility permits, approvals, and conditions prior to commencement  
of construction.  
16) Expiry of an APPROVED Development Permit occurs as per Special Areas Land  
Use Order Part VII, Section 49, (4) as shown below.  
b) A WECS - Commercial development permit shall have a maximum 5 year  
development timeline as outlined below:  
i. Commencement of development shall occur within 2 years of the issuance of  
the development permit. A time extension as described in subsection (iii) or a  
timeline suspension as described in subsection (iv) must be applied for prior  
to the expiration of the 2 year commencement of construction period;  
ii. Construction shall be completed within 2 years of commencement of  
construction. The 1 year time extension described in subsection (iii) may be  
granted by Municipal Planning Commission provided it was not previously  
granted under subsection (i). A time extension as described in subsection (iii)  
or a timeline suspension as described in subsection (iv) must be applied for  
prior to the expiration of the 2 year construction period;  
iii. A time extension considered by Municipal Planning Commission in  
subsection (i) and subsection (ii) may be approved for a 1 year term and the  
applicant must provide reasons why the extension is necessary;  
iv. The Municipal Planning Commission may consider suspending the 5 year  
Page 5  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
timeline described above where a development hardship is proven to the  
satisfaction of the Municipal Planning Commission. The Municipal Planning  
Commission shall specify the duration of any timeline suspension as part of  
the approval;  
v. The development permit shall expire if the suspension period in subsection  
(iv) is not granted and any period described in subsections (i), (ii), (iii), or  
(iv) lapses.  
Applying for a development permit prior to receiving other approvals,  
establishing financial stability, or not winning a Renewable Electricity Support  
Agreement (RESA) under the Renewable Energy Program, etc., will not be  
considered a development hardship.  
17) Adherence to Special Areas Land Use Order Part VII, Section 49, (4), e., Minimum  
Setback Requirements for Wind Towers.  
18) The installed turbine location tolerances shall vary no more than 50 meters from the  
approved Special Areas Development Permit location, provided that all Special Areas  
Land Use Order Setback Requirements are satisfied.  
19) Adherence to Special Areas Land Use Order Part VI, Section 19. A- Agricultural  
District for setback requirements for associated structures such as office, shop, etc.  
20) The installed turbine(s) shall be as per specifications outlined in the Development  
Permit Application or be a similar turbine model:  
i. With physical dimensions that are not materially different or greater than the  
proposed turbine;  
ii. With the sound characteristics differing from the modelled total sound power  
output, the developer must ensure setback compliance as per the Special Areas  
Land Use Order setbacks.  
'Materially' will be defined by the Development Authority for deciding how  
similar/different the turbine(s) are.  
21) Requiring separate Development Permit Applications and subsequent approvals for  
temporary structures such as:  
a) Temporary meteorological towers;  
b) Temporary work camps/ offices  
c) Temporary laydown areas (unless included in the original permit).  
22) The Special Areas Development Authority may tolerate some proposed changes after  
this approved development permit is in place; however, a developer is NOT  
authorized to proceed with proposed changes until an amended or new development  
permit has been issued with respect to these changes:  
a) Small Change - may be dealt with through the existing approved permit with an  
amendment;  
b) Large / Significant Change - requires a new Development Pe1mit Application  
and approval.  
Any change will require corresponding public consultation requirements, etc.  
The Special Areas Development Authority will determine if the proposed changes  
require an amendment or a new development permit.  
[13]  
The Appellant had incorrectly stated in the August 2021 DP amendment application that the  
Project complied with all setbacks identified in the LUO. Four of the project’s wind turbines, T1, T2, T7  
and T8 (Subject Turbines) were approved by the AUC in their specific locations but do not comply with  
the property line setback identified in Section 49(4)(e)(i)(3) of the LUO; therefore, they do not comply  
with Conditions 17 and 18 of the DP.  
Page 6  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
[14]  
Condition 17 requires the Project’s wind turbines to adhere to minimum setback requirements  
outlined in Part VII, Section 49(4)(e) of the LUO. Condition 18 similarly requires that they adhere to all  
setback requirements of the LUO. The minimum setback requirement for wind turbines from property  
lines where no road allowance is located between property lines and where both parcels are included  
within the same project boundary is 7.62 metres from the vertical extension of the rotor’s arc. The Subject  
Turbines have a rotor arc of 80 m; therefore, the required setback is 87.62 m and the four subject turbines  
do not meet this setback requirement:  
Required Setback  
Proposed Property Line  
Difference in Required vs  
Proposed Setback (m)  
Turbine  
(m)  
87.6  
87.6  
87.6  
87.6  
Setback (m)  
T1  
T2  
T7  
T8  
53  
83  
37  
30  
35  
5
51  
58  
[15]  
The Appellant applied to amend the DP and remove Conditions 17 and 18. The DA refused the  
application stating it lacks authority to vary or relax the setback requirements of the General Land Use  
Regulations specified by the LUO.  
[16]  
The Appellant appealed to the LPRT stating that the development permit amendment complies  
with the AUC approval and should be approved.  
ISSUES  
[17]  
In all cases, the legislation requires the LPRT to address whether a proposal complies with the  
Act, the Regulation, the land use bylaw (in this case the LUO), any statutory plans, and the Land Use  
Policies. In this case, the parties focused on the following specific issues:  
1. Should the LPRT exercise its discretion to vary the setback requirements of the LUO?  
2. If so, should Conditions 17 and 18 be deleted or modified to allow the variance for the Subject  
Turbines?  
3. Does s. 619 of the Act provide authority to the DA to vary the requirements of the LUO  
notwithstanding that the LUO does not provide the DA with such variance authority pursuant to s.  
640(6)?  
SUMMARY OF THE DA’S POSITION  
[18]  
The DA stated the application does not comply with subsection 49(4)(e) of the LUO and that the  
scope of a DA’s variance power is established by the municipality's land use bylaw pursuant to s. 640(6)  
of the Act:  
640(6) A land use bylaw may authorize a development authority to decide on an  
application for a development permit even though the proposed development  
does not comply with the land use bylaw or is a non-conforming building if, in  
the opinion of the development authority,  
(a) the proposed development would not  
(i) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or  
(ii) materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of  
neighbouring parcels of land,  
and  
Page 7  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
(b) the proposed development conforms with the use prescribed for that land or  
building in the land use bylaw.  
[19]  
In this case, the DA’s variance power is limited to what is specifically provided for in the LUO.  
The LUO does grant the DA a variance authority; however, pursuant to s. 8(4) of the LUO, it applies only  
to Development Standards of any District and does not extend to the General Land Use Regulations,  
which include the setback requirements at issue. The DA concluded it has no authority to vary the setback  
requirements and refused the amendment application.  
[20]  
The DA's position is that when there is a conflict between a project application authorized by the  
AUC and a municipality's land use bylaw, the applicant should obtain an amendment to the land use to  
resolve the conflict; once the amendment has been enacted, the DA can approve the application. This is  
the process contemplated in s. 619 of the Act. The Legislature's intent is evident from ss. 619(2) to (4),  
which require a municipality to approve an application for a land use bylaw amendment to the extent it is  
consistent with an AUC approval. If it were not the intent to require an application for a land use bylaw  
amendment in those circumstance, there would be no reason to provide for this process.  
[21]  
In this case, the Appellant did not apply to the SAB to amend the LUO; therefore, the DA could  
not approve the amendment application, as it was not within the MPC's authority to approve the variance  
of the setback requirement. Upon questioning, the DA stated that the process for land use amendments  
would begin with first reading by the SAB, usually within a couple of weeks; advertising for second  
reading would then contemplate a public hearing about a month later. Third reading would go to the  
Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is the SAB’s Council, and it could take several months to get on the  
Minister’s agenda. Generally, the process would take approximately six months.  
[22]  
The DA acknowledged that s. 619 applies to the LPRT with respect to its consideration of these  
appeals, and also that its variance power under s. 687(3)(d) of the Act is broader than that granted to the  
DA in the LUO. If the LPRT approves the amendment application, the DA requested no other alterations  
be made to DP SA2-16-17, as none have been requested or identified as required.  
SUMMARY OF APPELLANT’S POSITION  
[23]  
The Appellant submitted that prior to granting an approval, the AUC completes a robust  
assessment of the project to ensure compliance with relevant rules and to determine whether the project is  
in the public interest. For wind power projects, the AUC undertakes a detailed review including impact on  
the environment, noise and shadow flicker impacts, and concerns expressed by affected stakeholders. This  
assessment necessarily involves an assessment of the specific locations of proposed wind turbines, and  
the AUC requires applicants to provide the longitude and latitude coordinates for the centre of each  
structure supporting a wind-powered generator. The AUC Approval 26464-D01-2021 issued on July 7,  
2021 specified the finalized turbine locations, including the locations of the four Subject Turbines.  
[24]  
The Appellant filed the August 2021 DP amendment application to ensure the DP accurately  
reflected the minor changes authorized by the AUC Approval; while the application correctly identified  
the AUC-approved geographic coordinates for all Project turbines, including the Subject Turbines, it  
incorrectly stated that all Project turbines comply with the internal parcel boundary setback. Upon  
discovering this error and determining that Conditions 17 and 18 are inconsistent with the AUC  
Approvals, the Appellant applied to have Conditions 17 and 18 removed from the SAB Permit.  
Adherence to the internal property boundary setback necessarily requires the Subject Turbines to be  
moved to a location other than the AUC-approved longitude and latitude coordinates.  
Page 8  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
[25]  
Section 619 of the Act states that an AUC approval prevails over any land use bylaw or  
development decision by a development authority. Therefore, where a DP application is consistent with  
the terms of an AUC approval, the municipality must approve the application as applied for. The specific  
locations of the Subject Turbines have been approved by the AUC. The August 2021 Application was  
consistent with the AUC Approval, but it incorrectly stated the Subject Turbines comply with the internal  
parcel boundary setback. The amendment application was also consistent with the AUC Approval while  
expressly identifying the fact that the Subject Turbines do not comply with the internal property boundary  
setback. In accordance with s. 619 of the Act, the DA is required to approve the development permit  
applications without imposing conditions that conflict with the terms of the AUC Approvals, as do  
Conditions 17 and 18.  
[26]  
The operation of s. 619 has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Borgel v Paintearth  
(Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2020 ABCA 192 (Borgel) in which the County of  
Paintearth SDAB dismissed an appeal by affected persons with respect to a DP for the Halkirk 2 Wind  
Power Project. The Court of Appeal upheld the SDAB decision, and explained the purpose of section 619  
as it relates to development permits in respect of AUC-approved wind power projects:  
Considering the text of s 619 in the context of the MGA as a whole and its legislative  
history, and having regard to lower court judicial and tribunal interpretation, it is apparent  
that the purpose of s 619 is to reduce regulatory burdens and increase administrative  
efficiency and consistency. Section 619 achieves this by granting paramountcy to  
decisions of certain provincial bodies, to ensure projects are not blocked at the municipal  
level for issues already considered and approved at the provincial level.  
[27]  
In Jenner 2 and 3, the appeal to the LPRT concerned a DP approved by the DA with 23  
conditions of which Conditions 17 and 18 were substantially the same as in the subject appeal. In that  
case, the Appellant had argued that while s. 640(6) of the Act and the terms of the LUO limit the DA’s  
variance powers, they must be interpreted having regard to s. 619 of the Act and the paramountcy of AUC  
approvals.  
[28]  
Section 619 applies to all authorizations under Part 17 of the Act, where s. 640(6) is located. The  
LUO was engaged pursuant to s. 640(1), also located within Part 17. The Appellant in Jenner 2 and 3  
argued the DA must not impose conditions that are inconsistent with provincial approvals, which s. 619  
makes paramount. Also, while s. 619 contemplates approval of land use bylaw amendments consistent  
with an AUC Approval, such an amendment is not a prerequisite for approving DP applications that are  
consistent. The LPRT did not directly address these arguments in its reasons for decision; however, it  
determined the requested setback variances would not have undue negative impacts on neighbouring  
lands and that it was appropriate to remove Conditions 17 and 18 from the DPs in that appeal, having  
regard to section 687(3)(d) of the Act.  
[29]  
The Appellant submitted that while the LPRT is not bound by its previous decisions, it should  
apply the same reasoning in this case. Section 687(3)(d) gives the LPRT authority to vary the setback  
requirements of the LUO provided the proposed development would not unduly interfere with the  
amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of  
neighbouring parcels of land.  
[30]  
The Subject Turbines will not unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood - they are  
located on agricultural land, and agriculture and wind power generation are compatible land uses, as  
demonstrated WECS are listed as a discretionary use in the Agricultural district of the LUO. They will not  
materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land. Each of the  
Subject Turbines and adjoining parcels of land are located on contiguous land owned by the Hutterian  
Page 9  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
Brethren Church of Jenner, which has signed lease agreements with respect to the Project lands, including  
the lands on which the Subject Turbines are located, as well as the adjoining parcels to which the internal  
property line setback applies. The lease agreements are registered on the certificates of title such that any  
future purchaser would be aware that the land has been leased for the purpose of constructing and  
operating a wind power project. In the case of lands adjacent to the Subject Turbines, the encumbrance  
involves the blade of the Subject Turbines overhanging the parcel. The landowner provided a letter  
expressing unequivocal support for the Project and for the location of the Subject Turbines. The Appellant  
submits that the landowner’s consent to the use of adjoining parcels of land for the purpose of the Project  
and the fact that no concerns have been expressed regarding non-compliance with the internal property  
boundary setback clearly demonstrate that the Subject Turbines will not materially interfere with the  
landowner’s use and enjoyment of the adjoining lands.  
[31]  
In response to questions, the Appellant stated it was agreeable to Conditions 17 and 18 being  
modified to allow the Subject Turbines’ locations and not deleted.  
FINDINGS  
1. The LPRT should exercise its discretion to vary the setback requirements of the LUO.  
2. Conditions 17 and 18 should be modified to allow a setback variance for the Subject Turbines.  
3. Section 619 of the Act provides authority to the DA to vary the requirements of the LUO  
notwithstanding the provisions of s. 640(6).  
DECISION  
[32]  
The appeal is allowed, and the conditions of approval are varied as follows:  
1) Public and stakeholder consultations undertaken as per the Special Areas Land Use  
Order, as well as consultations required by all other government departments and  
regulations:  
a) Completed, documented, and summarized;  
b) Made available upon request.  
2) Adjacent properties setback reduction agreements on Crown land require each  
quarter to have:  
a) Consent of occupant;  
b) SAB approval.  
This applies to wind towers.  
3) Crown land easements for collector lines, access roads, etc., require each quarter to  
have:  
a) Consent of occupant;  
b) SAB approval.  
4) Approved road use agreements with Special Areas:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During operational phase;  
c) During decommissioning.  
5) Approved road development agreements with Special Areas:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During decommissioning.  
6) Approved safety code permits, as required, from Palliser Regional Municipal  
Services for:  
a) Building permits;  
b) Plumbing and sewage disposal permits;  
Page 10  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
c) Electrical permits;  
d) Gas permits;  
e) Other(s), as applicable.  
This applies to all structures/facilities such as: offices, shops, collector sites, towers,  
etc.  
7) Approved temporary laydown areas with land owner permission:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During decommissioning.  
8) Approved temporary staging areas with land owner permission:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During decommissioning.  
This will also require arrangements through an approved Special Areas Road Use  
Agreement and with Alberta Transportation.  
9) Ensure drainage runoff does not adversely affect neighboring lands:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During operational phase;  
c) During decommissioning.  
This applies to all permanent & temporary sites; towers, laydown areas, offices,  
shops, etc.  
10) Ensure garbage and debris is contained on site and properly disposed of at an  
approved waste transfer facility:  
a) During construction phase;  
b) During operational phase;  
c) During decommissioning.  
11) Disturbance and reclamation of all sites shall be completed in an environmental  
manner with:  
a) The standard being consistent with the "Reclamation Criteria for Well Sites and  
Associated Facilities";  
b) The restoration of grassland vegetative cover being completed utilizing species  
which provide assurance the site will achieve a community similar to the offsite  
control;  
c) The seed mix being free of noxious weeds;  
d) The development on Special Areas lands following Special Areas Board policy  
e) The standards being adhered to in all stages (preconstruction, construction,  
operation, decommissioning);  
f) The Developer providing the Development Authority, prior to construction, a  
detailed construction plan, including a post construction reclamation plan.  
12) All equipment entering project lands must be cleaned prior to arrival (free of dust,  
soil, plant materials, etc.) to reduce the spread or introduction of weed species or soil  
borne disease etc.  
13) Relocated soils, aggregate, or reclamation materials, must be preapproved by a  
Special Areas Agricultural Fieldman.  
14) Approvals from:  
a) AUC;  
b) Alberta Environment and Parks;  
c) Environment Canada;  
d) Transport Canada;  
e) NAV Canada;  
f) Alberta Transportation;  
g) Alberta Energy;  
h) Alberta Culture and Community Spirit;  
Page 11  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
i) Any other approvals or requirements as determined necessary by the Municipal  
Planning Commission.  
15) Adherence to Special Areas Land Use Order Part VII, Section 49, (4);  
a) The applicant shall forward to the Development Authority copies of all  
regulatory and utility permits, approvals, and conditions prior to commencement  
of construction.  
16) Expiry of an APPROVED Development Permit occurs as per Special Areas Land  
Use Order Part VII, Section 49, (4) as shown below.  
b) A WECS - Commercial development permit shall have a maximum 5 year  
development timeline as outlined below:  
i. Commencement of development shall occur within 2 years of the issuance of  
the development permit. A time extension as described in subsection (iii) or a  
timeline suspension as described in subsection (iv) must be applied for prior  
to the expiration of the 2 year commencement of construction period;  
ii. Construction shall be completed within 2 years of commencement of  
construction. The 1 year time extension described in subsection (iii) may be  
granted by Municipal Planning Commission provided it was not previously  
granted under subsection (i). A time extension as described in subsection (iii)  
or a timeline suspension as described in subsection (iv) must be applied for  
prior to the expiration of the 2 year construction period;  
iii. A time extension considered by Municipal Planning Commission in  
subsection (i) and subsection (ii) may be approved for a 1 year term and the  
applicant must provide reasons why the extension is necessary;  
iv. The Municipal Planning Commission may consider suspending the 5 year  
timeline described above where a development hardship is proven to the  
satisfaction of the Municipal Planning Commission. The Municipal Planning  
Commission shall specify the duration of any timeline suspension as part of  
the approval;  
v. The development permit shall expire if the suspension period in subsection  
(iv) is not granted and any period described in subsections (i), (ii), (iii), or  
(iv) lapses.  
Applying for a development permit prior to receiving other approvals,  
establishing financial stability, or not winning a Renewable Electricity Support  
Agreement (RESA) under the Renewable Energy Program, etc., will not be  
considered a development hardship.  
17) Adherence to Special Areas Land Use Order Part VII, Section 49, (4), e., Minimum  
Setback Requirements for Wind Towers, for all towers except for wind turbines T1,  
T2, T7 and T8 which may have reduced setbacks in accordance with AUC Approval  
26464-D02-2021.  
18) The installed turbine location tolerances shall vary no more than 50 meters from the  
approved Special Areas Development Permit location, provided that all Special Areas  
Land Use Order Setback Requirements are satisfied except as noted in Condition 17.  
9) Adherence to Special Areas Land Use Order Part VI, Section 19. A- Agricultural  
District for setback requirements for associated structures such as office, shop, etc.  
20) The installed turbine(s) shall be as per specifications outlined in the Development  
Permit Application or be a similar turbine model:  
i. With physical dimensions that are not materially different or greater than the  
proposed turbine;  
ii. With the sound characteristics differing from the modelled total sound power  
output, the developer must ensure setback compliance as per the Special Areas  
Land Use Order setbacks.  
Page 12  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
'Materially' will be defined by the Development Authority for deciding how  
similar/different the turbine(s) are.  
21) Requiring separate Development Permit Applications and subsequent approvals for  
temporary structures such as:  
a) Temporary meteorological towers;  
b) Temporary work camps/ offices  
c) Temporary laydown areas (unless included in the original permit).  
22) The Special Areas Development Authority may tolerate some proposed changes after  
this approved development permit is in place; however, a developer is NOT  
authorized to proceed with proposed changes until an amended or new development  
permit has been issued with respect to these changes:  
a) Small Change - may be dealt with through the existing approved permit with an  
amendment;  
b) Large / Significant Change - requires a new Development Pe1mit Application  
and approval.  
Any change will require corresponding public consultation requirements, etc.  
The Special Areas Development Authority will determine if the proposed changes  
require an amendment or a new development permit.  
REASONS  
[33] The parties agree that the LPRT has discretion to approve the setback variances in question  
pursuant to s. 687(3)(d) of the Act, and the LPRT finds the circumstances justify allowing them in this  
case. All of the affected land is owned by a single landowner who supports the Project and the variance;  
further, the registrations on title ensure potential future landowners become aware of the variance. Under  
those circumstances, the LPRT is satisfied the proposed development would not unduly interfere with the  
amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of  
neighbouring parcels of land.  
[34]  
With respect to whether Conditions 17 and 18 should be deleted or modified, the LPRT notes that  
excepting the Subject Turbines from the requirements of the conditions would achieve the objectives of  
the Appellant and provide compliance with the AUC approval. In view of the DA’s desire that no other  
alterations to the DP approval be made, the LPRT determined that minimal changes would be preferable.  
[35]  
With respect to whether the DA could have approved the DP application despite the provisions of  
s. 640, the LPRT acknowledges that combined with the wording of the LUO, the DA faces an apparent  
conflict in following the direction in both s. 640(6) and s. 619(2). On the one hand, s. 640(6) and the LUO  
appear to exclude the setback requirements under consideration from the DA’s discretion to relax; at the  
same time, 619(2) requires the DA’s decision concerning development permits to be consistent with AUC  
approvals – which in this case would require relaxing the LUO setbacks.  
[36]  
The DA argued that since s. 619(2) provides for a statutory plan amendment the Legislature must  
have intended such an amendment to precede the DP approval so as to preserve compliance with s. 640  
and the LUO. The LPRT disagrees, and finds a purposive reading of the Act resolves the apparent conflict  
in favour of s. 619.  
[37]  
First, the LPRT observes that while s. 619(2) requires a municipality to approve an application  
for a land use bylaw amendment to the extent it is consistent with an approval granted by the AUC, it  
does not state the applicant for a development approval that does not comply with the LUB must first  
apply for a land use bylaw amendment. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could have said so  
explicitly.  
Page 13  
File No. D22/SPEC/A2-015  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG0861  
[38]  
Second, the interpretation offered by the DA introduces impracticalities and is inconsistent with  
the purposes of the Act. A major policy objective behind the usual process to obtain a land use bylaw  
amendment is to allow for public input through a public hearing. However, in cases where there is an  
AUC or other provincial approval in place, s. 619(3) states specifically that a land use bylaw amendment  
under subsection (2) is not subject to the requirements of s. 692 (including the public hearing) unless, in  
the opinion of the municipality, the amendment relates to matters not included in the AUC approval.  
Similarly, s. 619(4) states that if a municipality holds a hearing to consider such an amendment, the  
hearing may not address matters already decided by the AUC, except as necessary to determine whether  
an amendment to a land use bylaw is required. It also states that unless a longer time is agreed to,  
approval must be granted within 90 days after the application. Read together, these provisions  
demonstrate an intent to spare developers from the usual process of obtaining LUB amendments through  
a public hearing process for the sole purpose of achieving consistency with existing provincial approvals.  
[39]  
In this case, the sole purpose of the subject application is to amend the DP to make it consistent  
with the AUC approval. Under such circumstances, a corresponding LUO amendment would not require a  
public hearing; even if one were held, there would be nothing to address, since the only matter to be  
considered as already been decided by the AUC. Further, it is unlikely the time lines under the Act for a  
land use amendment could be complied with. As such, the only practical effect of requiring an LUO  
amendment in the present case would be to waste time and resources, which would run counter to the  
legislative intent of s. 619 identified in Borgel to “reduce regulatory burdens and increase administrative  
efficiency and consistency”. In this respect, the LPRT observes that the Interpretation Act, RSA 2000  
Chapter I-08 states:  
10 An enactment shall be construed as being remedial, and shall be given the fair, large  
and liberal construction and interpretation that best ensures the attainment of its  
objects.  
[40]  
This interpretation is also supported by the observation that s. 619(1) is clear with respect to the  
paramountcy of provincial authorizations, while s. 640 applies to all municipalities. Generally, the  
presumption is that specific provisions of an enactment take precedence over more general provisions in  
the event of inconsistency.  
[41]  
In conclusion, the LPRT finds the circumstances of this case support exercising its discretion to  
vary the setbacks in question. Further, it does not agree that the provisions of the LUO that limit the DA`s  
authority to approve a variance pursuant to s. 640(6) take precedence over the s. 619 requirement for the  
DA to approve the variance if the application is consistent with an AUC approval. The LPRT  
acknowledges there may be situations where some aspect of a development is not contemplated in the  
AUC approval; in such cases, there would be benefit in holding a public hearing, and it would be  
reasonable to require an amendment to the LUB before issuing a DP or DP amendment. Accordingly, the  
approving authority should consider the circumstances before it to determine whether an LUB  
amendment is required first. However as noted, the circumstances would not appear to support requiring  
an LUB amendment application in this case.  
Dated at the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta this 15th day of June 2022.  
LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TRIBUNAL  
__________________________________________  
H. Kim, Member  
Page 14  
APPENDIX A  
PARTIES WHO ATTENDED, MADE SUBMISSIONS OR GAVE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING  
NAME  
CAPACITY  
N. Bakker  
T. Oleniuk  
W. Patterson  
A. Garcia  
A. Hope  
Appellant Counsel, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP  
Appellant Counsel, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP  
Appellant  
Appellant  
Appellant  
D. Young  
T. Caskey  
B. Richards  
Special Areas Board Counsel, Reynolds Mirth Richards and Farmer LLP  
Special Areas Board  
Special Areas Board  
M. Buchwitz  
Alberta Transportation  
APPENDIX B  
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE HEARING  
NO.  
ITEM  
PAGES  
1A  
2R  
3R  
4R  
5R  
6R  
Appeal Form Reasons and Attachments  
Development Permit Application  
Conservation & Reclamation Directive  
JWPP_EPP_V5_FINAL  
JWPP3 PIP Report Update April 2021  
Original DP 2017  
232  
26  
66  
111  
66  
6
7R  
8R  
9R  
Club Root and Invasive Species Mitigation Plan  
June 2021 - Consultation Update  
Application Sept 2021  
9
6
1
10R  
11R  
12R  
13R  
14R  
15R  
16R  
17R  
18R  
19R  
20R  
21R  
22R  
23R  
24R  
25R  
26R  
Snake Mitigation Plan  
JWPP Schedule of Lands (1)  
Jenner Wind Power Projects  
Proceeding 21394_October 2016_PIP  
Site Health and Safety Plan  
Special Areas Consultation and LO and Occ Consent  
Fire Prevention and Protection Program  
JWPP - Overview from AUC Approval - All collectors underground (1)  
Participant Involvement Program  
Guideline for Working Near Dry Grass  
Setback Table Aug 2021  
Traffic_Management_Plan  
Halsbury Substation and Maps Nov 2019 (1)  
JWPP - Topography Map  
5
3
15  
81  
101  
36  
11  
1
62  
1
1
27  
6
1
1
3
JWPP Turbine Location Table  
JWPP Visual Simulations - Winter 2021 (1)  
Enercon Turbines (1)  
1
27R  
28R  
29R  
30R  
31R  
32R  
33R  
34R  
35R  
36R  
37R  
38R  
39R  
40R  
41R  
42R  
43R  
44R  
45R  
46R  
47R  
48R  
49R  
50R  
51R  
52R  
53R  
54R  
55R  
56R  
57R  
58R  
59R  
60R  
61R  
62R  
63R  
64R  
65R  
66R  
67R  
68R  
69R  
70R  
71R  
72R  
73R  
74R  
75A  
76A  
Latest JWPP Newsletter (1)  
JWPP Updated NIA (1)  
JWPP SAB Noise Memo #1501302 (1)  
JWPP PIP  
JWPP Road Layout and Allowances - August 2021 (1)  
JWPP Preliminary Road Design (1)  
JWPP Reclamation Summary  
ECC Approval  
HRA Approval_Jenner 1.pdf (1)  
JWPP AEP Referral Report  
Updated AB Trans Permits  
JWPP Alberta Transportation Approval (1)  
7
80  
6
65  
1
4
4
2
5
19  
9
8
19  
2
2
1
8
3
2
MAPS  
July 2019 - DND Consultation on all Jenner Phases  
DND Non Objection - JWPP (1)  
JWP  
JEN  
Appendix 3 - TLine P&L (1)  
151-AU  
152-AU  
153-AU  
161JWP  
162JWP  
181JWP  
201-JW  
202-JW  
203-JW  
204JWP  
221-DE  
222-AP  
223-OC  
224-OC  
230JWP_1  
240JWP  
Owner Consent  
1621-T  
2017 Approval Letter and Conditions  
2019 September Reminder of Expiry  
2020 March Amendment  
2021 Sept Amendment  
Owner Consent  
3
2
1
1
7
30  
21  
2
29  
8
2
3
15  
2
1
8
2
6
1
2
2
3
2
24718_1  
July 7, 2021 - JWPP Landowner Map (1)  
JWPP- Updated AEP PP Consultation  
JWPP-AEP  
Landowners - 2 miles - Jenner 1  
SA2-16-17 - Jenner 1 (amendment) - Refused  
MPC Decision  
1
3
3
1
1
6
Jenner 1 LP Submission  
Jenner 1 LP Submission Authorities  
11  
100  
1
77AP Letter from Land owner  
78R  
79R  
80R  
RMRF Submissions to LPRT  
RMRF Tab 1  
Schedule C to Ministerial Order No. MSL:007/15  
3
5
152  
APPENDIX C  
LEGISLATION  
The Act and associated regulations contain criteria that apply to appeals of planning decisions. While the  
following list may not be exhaustive, some key provisions are reproduced below.  
Municipal Government Act  
Purpose of this Part  
Section 617 is the main guideline from which all other provincial and municipal planning documents are  
derived. Therefore, in reviewing development appeals, every proposal must comply with the philosophy  
expressed in 617.  
617 The purpose of this Part and the regulations and bylaws under this Part is to provide means whereby  
plans and related matters may be prepared and adopted  
(a) to achieve the orderly, economical and beneficial development, use of land and patterns of  
human settlement, and  
(b) to maintain and improve the quality of the physical environment within which patterns of  
human settlement are situated in Alberta,  
without infringing on the rights of individuals for any public interest except to the extent that is necessary  
for the overall greater public interest.  
NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC authorizations  
Section 619 identifies the role of municipal authorities and the Land and Property Rights Tribunal when  
dealing with authorizations granted by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC, providing for  
paramountcy of these authorizations over decisions to be made by a municipal authority or the LRPT.  
619(1) A licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or  
AUC prevails, in accordance with this section, over any statutory plan, land use bylaw, subdivision  
decision or development decision by a subdivision authority, development authority, subdivision and  
development appeal board, or the Land and Property Rights Tribunal or any other authorization under  
this Part.  
(2) When an application is received by a municipality for a statutory plan amendment, land use bylaw  
amendment, subdivision approval, development permit or other authorization under this Part and the  
application is consistent with a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB,  
ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC, the municipality must approve the application to the extent that it complies  
with the licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted under subsection (1).  
(3) An approval of a statutory plan amendment or land use bylaw amendment under subsection (2)  
(a) must be granted within 90 days after the application or a longer time agreed on by the  
applicant and the municipality, and  
(b) is not subject to the requirements of section 692 unless, in the opinion of the municipality, the  
statutory plan amendment or land use bylaw amendment relates to matters not included in the  
licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or  
AUC.  
(4) If a municipality that is considering an application under subsection (2) holds a hearing, the hearing  
may not address matters already decided by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC except as necessary  
to determine whether an amendment to a statutory plan or land use bylaw is required.  
(5) If a municipality does not approve an application under subsection (2) to amend a statutory plan or  
land use bylaw or the municipality does not comply with subsection (3), the applicant may appeal to the  
Land and Property Rights Tribunal by filing with the Tribunal  
(a) a notice of appeal, and  
(b) a statutory declaration stating why mediation was unsuccessful or why the applicant believes  
that the municipality was unwilling to attempt to use mediation.  
(6) The Land and Property Rights Tribunal, on receiving a notice of appeal and statutory declaration  
under subsection (5),  
(a) must commence a hearing within 60 days after receiving the notice of appeal and statutory  
declaration and give a written decision within 30 days after concluding the hearing, and  
(b) is not required to notify or hear from any person other than the applicant and the municipality  
against whom the appeal is launched.  
(7) The Land and Property Rights Tribunal, in hearing an appeal under subsection (6), may only hear  
matters relating to whether the proposed statutory plan or land use bylaw amendment is consistent with  
the licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted under subsection (1).  
(8) In an appeal under this section, the Land and Property Rights Tribunal may  
(a) order the municipality to amend the statutory plan or land use bylaw in order to comply with  
a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by the NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or  
AUC, or  
(b) dismiss the appeal.  
(9) Section 692 does not apply when the statutory plan or land use bylaw is amended pursuant to a  
decision of the Land and Property Rights Tribunal under subsection (8)(a).  
(10) A decision under subsection (8) is final but may be appealed by the applicant or the municipality in  
accordance with section 688.  
(11) In this section, “NRCB, ERCB, AER, AEUB or AUC” means the Natural Resources Conservation  
Board, Energy Resources Conservation Board, Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta Energy and Utilities  
Board or Alberta Utilities Commission.  
(12) Repealed 2020 c39 s10(7).  
Land Use Bylaw  
Section 640 identifies the requirement for every municipality to pass a land use bylaw and outlines the  
purpose and content of such a bylaw.  
640(1) Every municipality must pass a land use bylaw.  
(1.1) A land use bylaw may prohibit or regulate and control the use and development of land and  
buildings in a municipality, including, without limitation, by  
(a) imposing design standards,  
(b) determining population density,  
(c) regulating the development of buildings,  
(d) providing for the protection of agricultural land, and  
(e) providing for any other matter council considers necessary to regulate land use within the  
municipality.  
(2) A land use bylaw  
(a) must divide the municipality into districts of the number and area the council considers  
appropriate;  
(b) must, unless the district is designated as a direct control district pursuant to section 641,  
prescribe with respect to each district,  
(i) the one or more uses of land or buildings that are permitted in the district, with or  
without conditions, or  
(ii) the one or more uses of land or buildings that may be permitted in the district at the  
discretion of the development authority, with or without conditions,  
or both;  
(c) must establish a method of making decisions on applications for development permits and  
issuing development permits for any development, including provision for  
(i) the types of development permit that may be issued,  
(ii) applying for a development permit,  
(iii) processing an application for, or issuing, cancelling, suspending or refusing to issue,  
a development permit,  
(iv) the conditions that are to be attached, or that the development authority may attach,  
to a development permit, either generally or with respect to a specific type of permit,  
(v) how long any type of development permit remains in effect,  
(vi) the discretion that the development authority may exercise with respect to development  
permits, and  
(vii) any other matters necessary to regulate and control the issue of development permits  
that to the council appear necessary;  
(d) must provide for how and to whom notice of the issuance of a development permit is to be  
given;  
(e) must establish the number of dwelling units permitted on a parcel of land.  
(3) A land use bylaw may identify additional land as adjacent land for the purpose of notification under  
sections 653, 679, 680 and 692.  
(4) Repealed 2020 c39 s10(28).  
(5) A land use bylaw may provide that when an application for a development permit or change in land  
use designation is refused another application with respect to the same lot  
(a) for a development permit for the same or a similar use, or  
(b) for a change in land use designation  
may not be made by the same or any other applicant until the time stated in the land use bylaw has  
expired.  
(6) A land use bylaw may authorize a development authority to decide on an application for a  
development permit even though the proposed development does not comply with the land use bylaw or  
is a non-conforming building if, in the opinion of the development authority,  
(a) the proposed development would not  
(i) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or  
(ii) materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels  
of land,  
and  
(b) the proposed development conforms with the use prescribed for that land or building in the  
land use bylaw.  
(7) A land use bylaw must be consistent with the applicable requirements of the regulations under the  
Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act respecting the location of premises described in a cannabis licence  
and distances between those premises and other premises.  
(8) Despite this section or any other provision of this Act, the authority to pass a land use bylaw does not  
include the authority to pass a bylaw in respect of the use of a building or part of a building for  
residential purposes that has the effect of distinguishing between any individuals on the basis of whether  
they are related or unrelated to each other.  
(9) The Minister may by order direct a municipality to amend its land use bylaw in respect of the use of a  
building or part of a building for residential purposes if the land use bylaw has the effect of  
distinguishing between senior citizens on the basis of whether they are related or unrelated to each other.  
Section 683 deals with the responsibilities of a municipality regarding issuance of a development permit.  
Permit  
683 Except as otherwise provided in a land use bylaw, a person may not commence any development  
unless the person has been issued a development permit in respect of it pursuant to the land use bylaw.  
Development applications  
683.1(1) A development authority must, within 20 days after the receipt of an application for a  
development permit, determine whether the application is complete.  
(2) An application is complete if, in the opinion of the development authority, the application contains the  
documents and other information necessary to review the application.  
(3) The time period referred to in subsection (1) may be extended by an agreement in writing between the  
applicant and the development authority or, if applicable, in accordance with a land use bylaw made  
pursuant to section 640.1(a).  
(4) If the development authority does not make a determination referred to in subsection (1) within the  
time required under subsection (1) or (3), the application is deemed to be complete.  
(5) If a development authority determines that the application is complete, the development authority  
must issue to the applicant an acknowledgment in the form and manner provided for in the land use  
bylaw that the application is complete.  
(6) If the development authority determines that the application is incomplete, the development authority  
must issue to the applicant a notice in the form and manner provided for in the land use bylaw that the  
application is incomplete and that any outstanding documents and information referred to in the notice  
must be submitted by a date set out in the notice or a later date agreed on between the applicant and the  
development authority in order for the application to be considered complete.  
(7) If the development authority determines that the information and documents submitted under  
subsection (6) are complete, the development authority must issue to the applicant an acknowledgment in  
the form and manner provided for in the land use bylaw that the application is complete.  
(8) If the applicant fails to submit all the outstanding information and documents on or before the date  
referred to in subsection (6), the application is deemed to be refused.  
(9) If an application is deemed to be refused under subsection (8), the development authority must issue  
to the applicant a notice in the form and manner provided for in the land use bylaw that the application  
has been refused and the reason for the refusal.  
(10) Despite that the development authority has issued an acknowledgment under subsection (5) or (7), in  
the course of reviewing the application, the development authority may request additional information or  
documentation from the applicant that the development authority considers necessary to review the  
application.  
Grounds for appeal  
Section 685 addresses grounds for appeal by an Applicant of a decision by the Development Authority.  
685(1) If a development authority  
(a) fails or refuses to issue a development permit to a person,  
(b) issues a development permit subject to conditions, or  
(c) issues an order under section 645,  
the person applying for the permit or affected by the order under section 645 may appeal the decision in  
accordance with subsection (2.1).  
(1.1) A decision of a development authority must state whether an appeal lies to a subdivision and  
development appeal board or to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal.  
(2) In addition to an applicant under subsection (1), any person affected by an order, decision or  
development permit made or issued by a development authority may appeal the decision in accordance  
with subsection (2.1).  
(2.1) An appeal referred to in subsection (1) or (2) may be made  
(a) to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal  
(i) unless otherwise provided in the regulations under section 694(1)(h.2)(i), where the  
land that is the subject of the application  
(A) is within the Green Area as classified by the Minister responsible for the  
Public Lands Act,  
(B) contains, is adjacent to or is within the prescribed distance of a highway, a  
body of water, a sewage treatment or waste management facility or a historical  
site,  
(C) is the subject of a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by  
the Natural Resources Conservation Board, Energy Resources Conservation  
Board, Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board or Alberta  
Utilities Commission,  
or  
(D) is the subject of a licence, permit, approval or other authorization granted by  
the Minister of Environment and Parks,  
or  
(ii) in any other circumstances described in the regulations under section 694(1)(h.2)(ii),  
or  
(b) in all other cases, to the subdivision and development appeal board.  
(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), no appeal lies in respect of the issuance of a development permit for a  
permitted use unless the provisions of the land use bylaw were relaxed, varied or misinterpreted or the  
application for the development permit was deemed to be refused under section 683.1(8).  
(4) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), if a decision with respect to a development permit application in  
respect of a direct control district  
(a) is made by a council, there is no appeal to the subdivision and development appeal board, or  
(b) is made by a development authority, the appeal is limited to whether the development  
authority followed the directions of council, and if the subdivision and development appeal board  
finds that the development authority did not follow the directions it may, in accordance with the  
directions, substitute its decision for the development authority’s decision.  
Appeals  
Section 686 identifies procedures that a board hearing an appeal must follow  
686(1) A development appeal is commenced by filing a notice of the appeal, containing reasons, with the  
board hearing the appeal  
(a) in the case of an appeal made by a person referred to in section 685(1)  
(i) with respect to an application for a development permit,  
(A) within 21 days after the date on which the written decision is given under  
section 642, or  
(B) if no decision is made with respect to the application within the 40-day  
period, or within any extension of that period under section 684, within 21 days  
after the date the period or extension expires,  
or  
(ii) with respect to an order under section 645, within 21 days after the date on which the  
order is made,  
or  
(b) in the case of an appeal made by a person referred to in section 685(2), within 21 days after  
the date on which the notice of the issuance of the permit was given in accordance with the land  
use bylaw.  
(1.1) Where a person files a notice of appeal with the wrong board, that board must refer the appeal to  
the appropriate board and the appropriate board must hear the appeal as if the notice of appeal had been  
filed with it and it is deemed to have received the notice of appeal from the applicant on the date it  
receives the notice of appeal from the first board, if  
(a) in the case of a person referred to in subsection (1), the person files the notice with the wrong  
board within 21 days after receipt of the written decision or the deemed refusal, or  
(b) in the case of a person referred to in subsection (2), the person files the notice with the wrong  
board within 21 days after the date on which the notice of the issuance of the permit was given in  
accordance with the land use bylaw.  
(2) The board hearing an appeal referred to in subsection (1) must hold an appeal hearing within 30 days  
after receipt of a notice of appeal.  
(3) The board hearing an appeal referred to in subsection (1) must give at least 5 days’ notice in writing  
of the hearing  
(a) to the appellant,  
(b) to the development authority whose order, decision or development permit is the subject of the  
appeal, and  
(c) to those owners required to be notified under the land use bylaw and any other person that the  
subdivision and development appeal board considers to be affected by the appeal and should be  
notified.  
(4) The board hearing an appeal referred to in subsection (1) must make available for public inspection  
before the commencement of the hearing all relevant documents and materials respecting the appeal,  
including  
(a) the application for the development permit, the decision and the notice of appeal, or  
(b) the order under section 645.  
(4.1) Subsections (1)(b) and (3)(c) do not apply to an appeal of a deemed refusal under section 683.1(8).  
(5) In subsection (3), “owner” means the person shown as the owner of land on the assessment roll  
prepared under Part 9.  
Hearing and Decision  
Section 687 identified procedures to be followed at a hearing for a development permit appeal  
687(1) At a hearing under section 686, the board hearing the appeal must hear  
(a) the appellant or any person acting on behalf of the appellant,  
(b) the development authority from whose order, decision or development permit the appeal is  
made, or a person acting on behalf of the development authority,  
(c) any other person who was given notice of the hearing and who wishes to be heard, or a  
person acting on behalf of that person, and  
(d) any other person who claims to be affected by the order, decision or permit and that the  
subdivision and development appeal board agrees to hear, or a person acting on behalf of that  
person.  
(2) The board hearing the appeal referred to in subsection (1) must give its decision in writing together  
with reasons for the decision within 15 days after concluding the hearing.  
(3) In determining an appeal, the board hearing the appeal referred to in subsection (1)  
(a) repealed 2020 c39 s10(52);  
(a.1) must comply with any applicable land use policies;  
(a.2) subject to section 638, must comply with any applicable statutory plans;  
(a.3) subject to clauses (a.4) and (d), must comply with any land use bylaw in effect;  
(a.4) must comply with the applicable requirements of the regulations under the Gaming, Liquor  
and Cannabis Act respecting the location of premises described in a cannabis licence and  
distances between those premises and other premises;  
(b) must have regard to but is not bound by the subdivision and development regulations;  
(c) may confirm, revoke or vary the order, decision or development permit or any condition  
attached to any of them or make or substitute an order, decision or permit of its own;  
(d) may make an order or decision or issue or confirm the issue of a development permit even  
though the proposed development does not comply with the land use bylaw if, in  
its opinion,  
(i) the proposed development would not  
(A) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or  
(B) materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of  
neighbouring parcels of land,  
and  
(ii) the proposed development conforms with the use prescribed for that land or building  
in the land use bylaw.  
(4) In the case of an appeal of the deemed refusal of an application under section 683.1(8), the board  
must determine whether the documents and information that the applicant provided met the requirements  
of section 683.1(2).  
MUNICIPAL BYLAWS AND STATUTORY PLANS  
Land Use Order, March 3, 2015, Ministerial Order No. MSL: 007/15  
Part III  
Development Permit Application  
8. Deciding on Development Permit Applications  
…
(4)  
An application may be approved where the proposed development does not comply with the  
development standards of any District in this Order in consideration of the test for relaxation/  
variance below and if in the opinion of the Municipal Planning Commission the proposed  
development would not:  
(a) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood;  
(b) materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of the neighbouring properties  
and the amount of variance does not exceed 20% for front, side, rear yard and/or floor area  
requirements in any District; and  
(c) the proposed development conforms with the use prescribed for that land or building in this  
Land Use Order.  
The test for a relaxation shall include the following criteria:  
(a) conformance to the purpose and intent of the Land Use District;  
(b) whether granting the relaxation would make the proposed development incompatible with  
existing developments or uses;  
(c) take into consideration the future land uses of the parcel and surrounding area as depicted in  
any adopted statutory plan or policy affecting the site.  
PART VI  
Land Use Districts  
…
19. A - Agricultural District  
Purpose  
The purpose and intent of this District it to provide for extensive agriculture, while accommodating  
similar and compatible uses.  
…
(2) Discretionary Uses  
…
Wind Energy Conversion System – Commercial  
…
PART VII  
General Land Use Regulations  
…
49. Wind Energy Conversion Systems  
…
(4) WECS – COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS  
…
(e)  
Minimum Setback Requirements:  
(i)  
Setbacks from property lines  
1. From any Provincial Highway – as per Alberta Transportation  
2. From any municipal road allowance – 30.48 metres from the vertical extension of the  
rotor’s arc.  
3. Where no road allowance is located between property lines and where both parcels  
are included within the same WECS – Commercial development boundary – 7.62  
metres from the vertical extension of the rotor’s arc.  
4. Where the adjacent parcel is located outside of the development boundary the  
minimum setback shall be the greater of 550.00 metres or the modeled sound level  
not exceeding the Alberta Utilities Commission dwelling setback requirement  
measured from nearest property line to the nearest tower base so as to not negatively  
affect the development potential on adjacent properties that do not contain WECS  
development. Minimum setback requirements may be reduced with a written  
agreement of the affected landowner. Any agreement between the owner of the  
affected parcel and the developer shall be submitted as an attachment to the  
development permit application. An easement may be registered on the land title of  
the affected property.  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission