LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TRIBUNAL  
Citation:  
Killeleagh v Mountain View County (Development Authority), 2022 ABLPRT 1221  
Date:  
File No.  
2022-08-24  
D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
Municipality: Mountain View County  
In the matter of an appeal from a decision of Mountain View County Development Authority (DA)  
respecting the proposed development of SE 35-32-6 W5M under Part 17 of the Municipal Government  
Act, Chapter M-26 RSA 2000, (Act).  
BETWEEN:  
R. Killeleagh (Appellant 1, D22/MOUN/CO-026)  
and  
R. Tudor (Appellant 2, D22/MOUN/CO-027)  
and  
N. Konner (Appellant 3, D22/MOUN/CO-028)  
and  
C. McCharles (Appellant 4, D22/MOUN/CO-029)  
and  
J. Roberts (Appellant 5, D22/MOUN/CO-030)  
and  
M. Fankhauser (Appellant 6, D22/MOUN/CO-031)  
and  
K. Coward (Appellant 7, D22/MOUN/CO-032)  
and  
E. Schultz (Appellant 8, D22/MOUN/CO-033)  
and  
A. Johnson (Appellant 9, D22/MOUN/CO-034)  
Appellants  
- and -  
Mountain View County (Development Authority)  
Respondent Authority  
BEFORE:  
H. Kim, Presiding Officer  
D. Thomas, Member  
P. Yackulic, Member  
(Panel)  
K. Lau, Case Manager  
Page 1  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
DECISION  
APPEARANCES  
See Appendix A  
These are appeals to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT or Tribunal) from a decision of  
Mountain View County Development Authority (DA) respecting an application for a development permit  
(DP) affecting SE 35-32-6 W5M. A hearing was held via videoconference on August 8, 2022 after  
notifying interested parties.  
OVERVIEW  
[1]  
The appeals concern a development permit (DP) for Aggregate Extraction/Processing and  
Berming on 49.05 hectares (121.22 acres) of a parcel in Mountain View County (County), approximately  
5 kilometres west of the Town of Sundre. The DP was conditionally approved by the Municipal Planning  
Commission (MPC), which is the County’s DA, and nine appeals were filed by area residents in  
opposition to the DP, citing negative impacts including noise, traffic, dust and loss in property value.  
[2]  
The LPRT found the conditions of approval adequately address most of the Appellants’ concerns;  
however, that an additional condition restricting crushing operations to an area of the parcel furthest from  
the residents would be appropriate. Accordingly, the LPRT denied the appeals, but added a condition of  
approval that all crushing operations shall be located in the northwest portion of the quarter.  
PRELIMINARY MATTER CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS  
[3]  
This hearing involves nine appeals regarding one development permit. The LPRT proposed to  
hear the appeals together and to provide one written decision for all nine appeals. The Appellants,  
Applicant and DA had no concerns with consolidating the appeals. Accordingly, this decision applies to  
all nine appeals.  
REASON APPEAL HEARD BY LPRT INSTEAD OF SDAB  
[4]  
The appeal was filed with the LPRT instead of the 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  
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, Alberta Utilities Commission or the Minister of Environment and Parks (AEP).  
[5]  
In this case, the land that is the subject of the application is the subject of approvals required to be  
granted by AEP.  
Page 2  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
PROPOSAL  
[6]  
To develop Aggregate Extraction/Processing and Berming on 49.05 hectares (121.22 acres) of a  
60.69 ha (149.97 ac) parcel districted Aggregate Extraction/Processing District / Agricultural (2) in the  
County’s Land Use Bylaw (LUB) where these activities are discretionary uses.  
BACKGROUND  
[7]  
The appeals concern a DP application for Aggregate Extraction/Processing and Berming on 49.05  
hectares (121.22 acres) of a parcel within the South McDougal Area Structure Plan (ASP) located on the  
west side of Range Road (RR) 61 one quarter section to the south of Highway (Hwy) 584. The proposal is  
for dry pit extraction with a wash plant. The pit is considered a Class 1 pit by AEP and requires  
registration under the Code of Practice for Pits. Wash plants are the jurisdiction of AEP and require  
approval under the Water Act.  
[8]  
The quarter had previously been used for gravel extraction and was known as the Ross Pit, with a  
provincial permit, but with no record of municipal approvals. Historically, municipal bylaws allowed up  
to 5 acres of gravel extraction without a permit. At the time of purchase, the gravel pit was not active, but  
approximately 25 acres of the land had been open pit excavated and had not been reclaimed. After the  
previous owner passed away, the current owner purchased the land in 2012.  
[9]  
In 2012 an application for a DP for Natural Resource Extraction/Processing was submitted but  
refused. The LUB was amended in 2014 to add the Aggregate Extraction and Processing (AE&P) district,  
intended to accommodate this type of use. At the same time, specific Use Regulations were added into the  
LUB, including submission requirements for AE&P applications added as section 10.11a of the LUB.  
Page 3  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
Since the 2014 LUB amendment, all proposals for AE&P use are required to obtain redesignation prior to  
applying for a development permit.  
[10]  
In 2015 a proposal to redesignate the subject land to AE&P was refused by Council. A second  
such application in 2021 was approved by Bylaw LU 32/21, which redistricted the majority of the subject  
land - approximately 121.22 acres, from Agricultural District (A) to Aggregate Extraction/Processing  
District (AE&P), and the balance 28.84 acres to Agricultural (2) District (A(2)). Subsequent motions  
approved by Council requested that MPC consider implementing development permit conditions  
requiring a compliance review 5 years after approval, restricting aggregate extraction below the water  
table and taking into consideration the dust management plan contained in the Comprehensive Site  
Development Plan.  
[11]  
In March 2022 the subject DP application was submitted, and approved by MPC in June 2022  
subject to the following conditions:  
STANDARD CONDITIONS:  
1. The provisions of the Land Use Bylaw No. 21/21.  
2. Approval by the approving authority does not exclude the need and/or requirements of  
the Permittee to obtain any and all other permits as may be required by this or any other  
legislation, bylaws, or regulations.  
3. The Development Officer may, by notice in writing, suspend a Development Permit  
where development has occurred in contravention to the terms and conditions of the  
permit and/or Land Use Bylaw.  
4. If the development authorized by a Development Permit is not complete within twenty-  
four (24) months from the effective date of the Permit, such Permit approval ceases  
and the Permit itself is deemed void, expired and without effect, unless an extension to  
this period has been previously granted.  
STANDARD CONDITIONS IF APPLICABLE:  
5. N/A  
6. All access approaches must be to County standards. A no charge approach permit is  
required and can be obtained at the Mountain View County office.  
7. N/A  
8. N/A  
9. N/A  
10. A rural address is required to be posted on the property. The landowner shall contact  
Mountain View County to obtain a rural address and the requirements for posting it on  
the property as per the Rural Addressing Bylaw.  
11. No development shall be constructed, placed or stored over an easement or utility right  
of way; the applicant/landowner is responsible for contacting Alberta-One-Call and/or  
other governing authority.  
PERMITS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING CONSTRUCTION:  
12. Permittees are advised that they are subject to standards of the Safety Codes Act of  
Alberta and are responsible to meet the requirements of the Act in regards to building,  
electrical, gas, plumbing, and private sewage disposal systems. Prior to construction  
required permits must be obtained from Mountain View County. Mountain View  
County shall not be responsible or liable in any manner whatsoever for any structural  
failures, defects or deficiencies whether or not the said development has complied with  
the Safety Codes Act of Alberta.  
Page 4  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
ADDITIONAL CONDITION(S):  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
13. Regular Hours of Operation for the gravel pit including stripping and stockpiling,  
aggregate extraction, loading, crushing, hauling and truck traffic shall be Monday thru  
Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. No operation of the pit shall occur on Sundays or  
Statutory holidays. Hours of Operation shall be strictly adhered to.  
14. On the occasion that the applicant, landowner and/or operator wishes to extend the  
hours of operation for crushing purposes other than the hours specified in Condition  
13, the operator shall obtain and submit to Mountain View County written consent  
from the majority of adjacent landowners within a half (1/2) mile of the subject  
property.  
15. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall provide dust control within the  
operation of the gravel pit to ensure there is no adverse impact to adjacent landowners  
and residences.  
16. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall install an identification sign at the  
entrance of the gravel pit. This sign must be legible and shall include the name of the  
pit, the legal land descriptions and rural address information, contact information, and  
Hours of Operation.  
17. Soils shall be separated into topsoil and subsoil piles. All piles and berms shall be  
seeded to prevent the contents from being blown off-site and shall be used for  
reclamation purposes within the pit.  
18. Asphalt plants are not permitted to be placed within SE 35-32-6-5. Should this be  
required, a new Development Permit shall be obtained from the County. Wet scrubber  
systems shall not be allowed through the permitting process for portable batch plants.  
19. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall observe and practice the standard Code  
of Practice for Pits as described within the “A Guide to the Code of Practice for Pits”  
published by Alberta Environment.  
20. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall implement the phasing and reclamation  
plan consistent with their submitted application for the SE 35-32-6-5 and return the pit  
back to agricultural use. Any additional uses for the subject property shall require the  
issuance of permits from Mountain View County. A maximum of 30 acres in total shall  
be disturbed at any one time (excluding access roads); the remainder of the pit shall  
either remain in its natural/original state or reclaimed.  
21. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall conform to the noise control methods  
identified within Section 6.7.1 of “A Guide to the Code of Practice for Pits” published  
by Alberta Environment.  
22. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall obtain all provincial registration/  
approvals from Alberta Environment and Parks for the gravel pit and wash plant  
proposed within SE 35-32-6-5.  
23. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall restrict the use of engine retarder brakes  
within the pit operating area.  
24. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall dispose of any chemicals collected and  
contained on site at an approved waste facility in a timely manner to prevent possible  
soil contamination. Any contamination clean up shall be the responsibility of the  
applicant, landowner and/or operator.  
25. Subject to obtaining a Fire Permit, the applicant, landowner and/or operator shall be  
limited to burn Class A material (ordinary combustible materials that burn with an  
ember and leave an ash) on site, within a self-contained metal bin to allow for ash to  
be removed and disposed of properly.  
26. Positive drainage shall be maintained throughout the life of the pit and shall be in  
consultation with Mountain View County.  
Page 5  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
27. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall ensure that all truckers and/or  
contractors are aware of and comply with the conditions of this Development Permit  
relating to the operation of the gravel pit.  
28. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall comply with the Mountain View  
County’s Community Aggregate Payment Levy Bylaw.  
29. This permit shall be reviewed by administration every five (5) years to confirm  
compliance with the above conditions and the Operating Regulations. In addition, and  
as part of the Administrative compliance review, the applicant, landowners and/or  
operator shall submit to Administration an up to date activities plan with a site plan  
containing the following information: Total Pit Area, Active Pit Area, Reclaimed Area,  
Certified Area from the Registration with Alberta Environment.  
30. The Aggregate Extraction/Processing - Gravel Pit (121.22 acres (49.05 hectares)) is  
approved for dry pit extraction only including a Wash Plant requiring approval from  
Alberta Environment and Parks.  
31. All trucks leaving the pit shall be free of material outside of the haul box of the vehicle.  
32. The berms shall be constructed as per the submitted application and shall be completed  
within 24 months of issuance of the permit. The berms shall remain for the life of the  
pit.  
33. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall implement weed control measures for  
the berms and shall seed the berms to prevent the contents from being blown off site.  
The berms shall be used for reclamation purposes within the pit.  
34. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall maintain 165 meter setback from any  
dwelling.  
35. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall ensure all gravel pit operations meet  
required setbacks as determined by Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).  
36. A final reclamation certificate shall be obtained from Alberta Environment and  
submitted to Mountain View County upon completion/reclamation of the gravel pit  
area.  
37. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall, to the satisfaction of the County, hard  
surface and maintain the approach to a paved standard, from the property line  
connecting to the Range Road 61 road surface. This shall be completed prior to hauling  
to third party locations and the applicant, landowner and/or operator shall contact the  
County for an inspection once complete.  
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE CONDITIONS:  
38. Prior to Issuance of the Development Permit the applicant, landowner and/or operator  
shall enter into a Road Construction Agreement with Mountain view County for the  
required upgrade to the intersection of Highway 584 and Range Road 61. The Road  
Construction Agreement shall include securities to be obtained to ensure completion  
of the intersection. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall be permitted to use  
materials from the SE 35-32-6-5 to complete the required intersection improvements.  
Hauling to third party locations shall not be permitted until such time as the intersection  
is completed.  
39. Prior to Issuance of the Development Permit the applicant, landowner and/or operator  
shall enter into a Road Use/Haul Route Agreement for all pit operations from the pit  
within the SE 35-32-6-5 along Range Road 61 to Highway 584.  
[12]  
Nine Appellants filed appeals citing noise, dust and water usage, the cumulative impact from the  
number of gravel pits already in the area, the untested nature and timing of installation of the proposed  
berm, impact on residents’ water, decrease in property values, outdated studies supporting the application,  
Page 6  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
impact of large vehicles constantly hauling gravel, concerns with respect to drainage, impact on  
ecosystem and wildlife in the area, and impact on residents’ quality of life.  
ISSUES  
[13]  
In all cases, the legislation requires the LPRT to address whether a proposal complies with the  
Act, the Subdivision and Development Regulation (Regulation), the LUB, any statutory plans, and the  
Provincial Land Use Policies (LUP). For the subject appeal, the parties focused on the following issues  
for which the LPRT has authority to consider:  
1. Will the development negatively affect the Appellants’ property values?  
2. Will the quality and quantity of water in the aquifer decline as a result of the development?  
3. Will the development generate unacceptable levels of noise?  
4. Will the development generate unacceptable levels of dust?  
5. Will the traffic generated by the development cause a negative impact on the Appellants?  
6. Will the development negatively impact the ecosystem and wildlife in the area?  
7. Will the addition of another gravel pit result in negative cumulative impacts on the area?  
SUMMARY OF THE DAS POSITION  
[14]  
The DA noted the proposal includes reclamation of the approximately 25 acres of previously  
disturbed area, as phased extraction and reclamation is implemented throughout the pit operations.  
Administration of reclamation falls within AEP’s jurisdiction; however, to ensure progressive  
reclamation, a condition was included in the DP requiring a maximum of 30 acres in total, excluding  
access roads, to be disturbed at any one time - the remainder of the land shall either remain in its natural  
state or be reclaimed. This condition is consistent with recent gravel pit approvals in the County. The  
proposal includes all associated operations, such as stripping and stockpiling, aggregate extraction,  
loading, crushing, hauling and truck traffic.  
[15]  
The Applicant’s submission included the required sections of the Comprehensive Site  
Development Plan, as required in the LUB, along with studies including Hydrogeological Background  
Review, Noise Impact Assessment, Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), Water Supply Evaluation, Letter  
report: Site Investigation (Ducks Unlimited explanation of vegetation type) for planting when returning  
land to agriculture, Updated Groundwater Chemistry and Field Verified Survey. Some of the studies were  
used to support previous applications, and updates were provided for some studies. The submitted  
application meets the policies of the Municipal Development Plan (MDP), the ASP and the regulations of  
the LUB.  
[16]  
Berming is included to provide visual and noise mitigation on the southerly, easterly and westerly  
portions of the property and the proposal maintains a 165 m undisturbed buffer from the surrounding  
dwellings adjacent to the gravel pit as required in the LUB. The height of the berms varies depending on  
location as detailed in the applicant’s Comprehensive Site Development Plan. Berming was listed in the  
DP application because it is a separate use under the LUB, but the requirements for applications for  
Berming in the LUB are intended for standalone berming - not for when berming is included as part of a  
larger development as it is in the subject DP.  
Property Values  
[17]  
The DA noted that no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate loss of property values as a  
result of this proposed development. The County’s Assessment Department confirmed that the property  
values referred to within the Appellantssubmission was for a specific market location in the County as a  
Page 7  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
result of sales comparisons. The development that is subject to this appeal has not commenced, and if loss  
in value can be demonstrated, the assessment values and taxes would decrease. The DA noted that Part 17  
of the Act specifically contemplates that planning decisions may have some infringement on individual  
rights to the extent that they are required for the overall public interest.  
Water  
[18]  
With respect to the Appellantsconcerns about impacts to the water table, water supply and  
quality as a result of the gravel pit operations, the DA noted the applicant is proposing a dry pit extraction  
with the addition of a wash plant. Wash plants are the jurisdiction of AEP and require approval under the  
Water Act. The conditions of approval ensure Provincial regulations and approvals are obtained prior to  
operation and at the end of the life of the pit. The Applicant submitted the required studies and AEP’s  
circulation response noted the requirement for a licence under the Water Act, the potential requirement for  
an approval for extraction where the water table may be disturbed and/or impacted, and where end pit  
lakes are proposed at the time of reclamation, and the requirement for a Registration under the  
Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) - Code of Practice for Pits (COP).  
Noise  
[19]  
The County does not have a Noise Bylaw; therefore, the conditions of approval prescribe that the  
Applicant shall conform to the noise control methods identified in section 6.7.1 of AEP’s “A Guide to the  
Code of Practice for Pits.Additional conditions restrict days and hours of operation.  
Dust  
[20]  
The conditions of approval require dust control be provided within the operation of the gravel pit  
to alleviate adverse impacts associated with dust in the pit. Mitigative measures are described in the COP,  
and the conditions of approval require the applicant to observe and practice this standard.  
Traffic  
[21]  
The DA stated that in both 2015 and 2021, the Applicant commissioned Tetra Tech Engineering  
to provide a TIA for traffic volumes at the intersection of Range Road 61 and Hwy 584. Both TIAs  
concluded a Type IIB Intersection Treatment is warranted based on existing traffic volumes, without the  
addition of the proposed development. In addition, Alberta Transportation (AT) confirmed in their  
circulation response that the intersection upgrade is required. The intersection upgrade is required and  
material from the subject property may be used, but must be completed prior to hauling material to third  
party locations. The Prior to Issuance Conditions require the Applicant to enter into a Road Construction  
Agreement with the County for the required upgrade, including drawings, securities and a process for  
construction completion, a maintenance period and conclusion of the agreement. Further, the Applicant is  
required to pave the approach to RR 61 at the entrance, to avoid chip seal failure from truck turning  
movements, prior to third party hauling to and from the site.  
Cumulative Impacts  
[22]  
The DA referenced the Appellants’ concerns that the MPC had not considered cumulative effects  
as required under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) and the Land-Use Framework with respect to  
the intensity of gravel pits as a dominant land use in the South McDougal Flats area creating unhealthy  
and unsafe living conditions for residents. In response, the County noted the land is within the Red Deer  
Regional Plan area of ALSA; however, preparation of this plan has not started.  
Page 8  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
[23]  
In the absence of a regional plan, the LUP apply. The LUP have policies encouraging  
municipalities to establish land use patterns that accommodate natural resource extraction and minimize  
conflict between this use and other nearby uses. Other goals within LUP policies are to contribute to the  
efficient use of Alberta’s nonrenewable resources, and policies encouraging municipalities to direct  
subdivision and development activity so as not to constrain or conflict with non-renewable resource  
development, while utilizing mitigation measures to minimize possible negative impacts on surrounding  
areas and land uses.  
[24]  
Although they do not specifically address cumulative impact, the MDP and ASP policies provide  
requirements including buffering, screening, and road use agreements to minimize the impact on  
adjoining land uses. The MDP section on Natural Resources recognizes extraction of resources as an  
interim land use requiring appropriate and timely reclamation, while requiring applications to demonstrate  
how impacts are minimized and mitigated. Policies in the ASP also recognize natural resource extraction  
as an interim use and encourage progressive reclamation.  
[25]  
Council considered the impacts when redistricting was approved in 2021. The purpose of the  
AE&P district is to permit the removal, extraction, processing and transmission of raw aggregate  
materials for commercial purposes. The Applicant proposes to place a berm to assist in mitigating  
negative effects such as visual impact, noise and dust. At the DP stage, MPC determined the proposal is  
reasonably compatible with the surrounding land uses, complies with the LUB regulations and that the  
DP conditions mitigate off-site impacts.  
[26]  
In summary, the DA stated the concerns were addressed by the conditions of approval and  
requested that the appeals be denied and the decision of the MPC upheld.  
SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANTSPOSITIONS  
R. Tudor  
[27]  
R. Tudor presented an aerial view and photographs of the subject area indicating the location of  
current gravel pits in the area. McDougal Flats is a valley west of the Town of Sundre and there are  
already six gravel pits, including a Provincial gravel pit, within four miles of each other around the  
country residential subdivisions. The subject pit is the closest to country residential subdivision. The  
closer the gravel pit is to the residences the greater the impact on property values. When the developers  
applied for the last country residential subdivision, the Ross pit was an abandoned excavation, and they  
had asked the County whether the gravel pit was going to be developed. At the time they were told no,  
and until 10 years ago there was also a residence on the property. It was expected that setback distances  
would be maintained.  
[28]  
Lack of good internet access among residents and the format of the public hearing due to COVID  
allowed for this redesignation application to pass, as it was not substantially different from the previous  
application turned down by Council. The impact of this gravel pit, directly to the north of country  
residential development, should have been considered and not been approved the Council vote was split  
among members from the east and west areas of the County. Mr. Tudor quoted from ALSA and the ASP  
to note the approval lacked consideration of cumulative effects of the proliferation of gravel pits in this  
area, as required.  
[29]  
The proposals for mitigation are inadequate. The berms are not engineered, and are proposed to  
be constructed using straw bales topped with wood chips (which would make the soil acidic) and soil.  
The concerns are potential for fire, whether grass will grow on the acidic soil and whether the berm will  
effectively mitigate the sound. The noise impact assessment was done by computer modelling and  
Page 9  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
considered only the subject and not the other gravel pits in the area, nor the valley setting, which also  
visibly catches dust in the area. Further, the conditions provide for two years to build the berm, which is  
unreasonable the berms should be completed prior to commencement of the excavation.  
[30]  
The water table in McDougall Flats is within two metres of the surface. The water supply  
evaluation is flawed, as it is a single source drawdown analysis and not cumulative with the other pits.  
There should be no excavations below 1 meter above the highest recorded water table in the last 50 years,  
to minimize the potential of aquifer contamination.  
[31]  
The traffic studies are also inadequate: the TIAs were conducted in April 2015 and October 2021,  
whereas May to September is the busy time for the gravel pits and recreational traffic.  
N. Konner  
[32]  
Mr. Konner’s concerns as to land planning matters generally echoed those raised in Mr. Tudor’s  
presentation. He built his house in 1997 on land directly across from the proposal. At that time, the area  
was intended for agriculture and acreages; there were discussions to promote tourism, as well as  
investments related to this vision. The County has decimated the land west of Sundre with 7 gravel pits on  
the south side of Hwy 584 about 2 km from the Red Deer River between RR 54 to RR 64. This area  
should have been parks, bike and horse-back riding trails and acreage development.  
[33]  
County Council has previously recognized that gravel pits are not compatible with residential use;  
in February 2016, Council rejected an application to redesignate land from Agricultural to Country  
Residential, as reported in an article from the Mountain View Gazette. This proposed parcel redesignation  
was close to existing gravel pits, and the vote was unanimous. The reasoning for the decision is as  
follows: “The two land uses (residential and aggregate resource) are incompatible as gravel pit operations  
often have off-site impacts such as dust, traffic, water quality, noise, etc., that would negatively impact  
residential uses.” Mr. Konner stressed many ways in which gravel pits are inconsistent with residential  
development, and stressed the negative effects on health caused by dust from gravel extraction, which  
will be exacerbated in this case by windy conditions in the area.  
[34]  
Mr. Konner stated the County has sufficient stockpiles of gravel and does not need to develop  
more pits in this area. There are also other areas in the County where gravel can be extracted. He provided  
a petition with 45 signatures of landowners opposed to this gravel pit, and could have obtained more with  
additional time. Finally, he questioned the ethics of some members of Council alleging, for example,  
that one has consistently voted in favour of gravel operations, while another owns a gravel tested quarter  
section in the area. Mr. Konner suggested Council decisions lack transparency and an oversight or  
supervisory panel would be beneficial to address a general preference for industry over the interests of  
private land owners.  
C. McCharles  
[35]  
The Noise Study from 2012 was updated by merely changing the file name to the 2021 study -  
this does not comply with the requirements of the LUB, which state that sound mitigation measures shall  
be required for all aggregate extraction activities. Other required studies were similarly out of date and do  
not comply with the submission requirements of the LUB. The Berming proposal does not comply with  
the LUB, as required information specified under s. 10.3 was not provided.  
Page 10  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
[36]  
Ms. McCharles lives directly across from the proposal with a direct line of sight, and is concerned  
the LUB requirements are not met. She can hear the crushing from the Saunders pit to the north of the  
subject land, and since this proposal is closer, it will have a greater negative impact on property values  
and quality of life.  
T. Fankhauser  
[37]  
T. Fankhauser and M. Fankhauser have lived in this location for 20 years. Their concerns echo  
the statements of the other Appellants. They stated the proposed development of yet another gravel pit is  
unacceptable and will destroy their quality of life. With respect to the berms, they are concerned the hay  
bales will decompose and become ineffective. Further, it is not reasonable to wait two years for the berms  
to be constructed, assuming they do get constructed at all.  
A. Johnson  
[38]  
Mr. Johnson purchased his home five years ago and was unaware of what was proposed. No berm  
will cover the visibility from the second floor windows of his property. Mr. Johnson is concerned the  
proposal will negatively impact his ability to sell, and the value of his home, which is part of his  
retirement plan. He questioned what compensation would be available.  
R. Killeleagh  
[39]  
The residents of McDougall Flats have been against this development for over nine years. The  
ASP, which was adopted in 2010 states that the residents saw the impact of gravel pits as a major  
concern. The community felt threatened by their uncontrolled proliferation within the planning area, and  
twelve years later, the concerns have become a reality.  
[40]  
Previous County Councils denied the AE&P permit for this Applicant, stating that this small area  
has already been inundated with multiple pits and one more is one too many. Over the years the residents  
have pointed out the many negative impacts on the area due to increased aggregate extraction. A review  
of the permit application contains many reasons this pit should not be allowed. The studies provided by  
the Applicant are based on the output of noise, dust, and water usage of the subject alone, and do not  
consider the multiple gravel pits already within close proximity. The cumulative effect of additional  
noise, toxic dust, potential water contamination and decreased land values due to the addition of an eighth  
gravel pit in this small valley will put a strain on the people who have chosen to live in this area.  
[41]  
South McDougall Flats covers approximately 9500 acres, just over 1% of the total area of the  
County, but has 1,120 acres already committed to gravel pits. This application will remove another 122  
acres from what was designated as Agricultural lands. The MDP states a main priority is to preserve  
agricultural lands for agriculture, and this permit clearly contradicts this priority. This is not a NIMBY  
reaction to this application, as the residential and agricultural taxpayers of this region already have seven  
pits in the immediate vicinity. The location of this pit destroys what buffer the residents have.  
J. Roberts  
[42]  
J. Roberts agreed with the points raised by the other Appellants, and added that the berms would  
decompose and become a fire hazard.  
Page 11  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
Other Appellants  
[43]  
Two of the Appellants did not attend the hearing and provided written submissions in support of  
their appeals. N. Coward had the same concerns as others had expressed, but also questioned how the  
current ecosystem of wildlife in the area would be maintained.  
[44]  
E. Schultz had the same concerns as the other Appellants, and provided photographs of the area,  
showing the existing water body on the subject property. The water table is very close the surface, and  
exposing it will cause evaporation and contamination of their water supply. The photographs were taken  
in July 2022 after weeks of hot weather, and the water table would be much higher in the spring.  
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED PERSONS’ POSITIONS  
M. Currie  
[45]  
M. Currie did not appeal but is affected by the proposal and attended the hearing. He expressed  
concern that this permit for gravel extraction would grow and other uses, such as an asphalt plant and  
additional activities would be added.  
[46]  
SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S POSITION  
[47] The Applicant stated the studies that had been prepared for the earlier applications were  
Several other affected persons attended the hearing but did not make submissions.  
reviewed, and updated letters submitted.  
Property Values  
[48]  
Historical and current planning documents note the presence of gravel deposits throughout the  
area, and that potential exists for future gravel workings. The ASP states natural resource extraction,  
particularly sand and gravel deposits, prior to the subdivision or development of the lands for other uses  
shall be encouraged. Gravel processing, extraction equipment and stockpiles are currently on site and  
visible from adjacent roadways. The previous owner started gravel operations on the land more than 35  
years ago and none of the area was reclaimed. This proposal will reclaim the land, install berms and  
improve the current situation.  
Water  
[49]  
The proposal is a dry pit with no mining below the water table, so changes to the water table  
associated with large pits should not occur. The Applicant intends to secure a Water Use Permit from  
AEP which cannot be processed until the DP is approved. The wash pits will require approximately 7,000  
m3/year, compared to the water utilization permitted for a residential acreage of up to 1,250 m3/year. The  
amount that will be used by the gravel pit is much less than if the area were developed for residential use.  
The Applicant commissioned an aquifer study and installed one production water well on the current pit  
floor near the existing aggregate washing facilities and two monitoring wells on the south and south-east  
end of the property. AEP testing standard requires only one monitoring well, but the Applicant went  
beyond what is required to ensure a washing operation would not affect local residents. The final report  
shows the aquifer can easily support the intended consumption by the development without adverse  
effects to neighbouring properties and water users.  
Page 12  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
Noise  
[50]  
Berms will be constructed on the northwest half quarter, the northeast surrounding the existing  
acreage, and along the south and southeast property lines to mitigate noise. The berms will be round straw  
and canola bales stacked in a pyramid approximately 5 metres high, with organic residual product and top  
soil to seal off oxygen from the bales and mitigate composting, and sprayed with a hydro seed mixture to  
prevent erosion. Trees will be planted along municipal roadways and provide a visual buffer as well.  
[51]  
Crushing will initially take place in Sections 1 and 2, the previously mined and not reclaimed  
area. The mined area will be reclaimed prior to moving extraction operations to the northwest portion of  
the land, including Sections 3 and 4. Crushing will take place in this portion of the property to maximize  
the distance from all neighbouring properties and ensure the potential for noise is mitigated to the extent  
geographically possible. A mining setback of 105 meters will be established from the southern boundary  
and a setback of 165 meters will be established from any existing residence. Granular materials outside of  
the designated processing area will be loaded onto a series of portable overland belts or trucks with an  
excavator to minimize back up alarm noise.  
Dust  
[52]  
The number of development phases was increased from 4 to 7, reducing the average mining area  
to 16.5 acres per phase. This will mitigate airborne particles from the property. Mitigation strategies  
include minimizing the disturbed land, tarping aggregate processing equipment, paving the pit entrance,  
restricting speed limits within the property to 10 km/h and having a water truck and sweeper broom  
dedicated to site.  
Traffic  
[53]  
The TIA indicated the proposed additional 11 truck trips per day, with a maximum of 8 commuter  
trips per day on RR 61 combined with background traffic will sustain operation at the existing service  
level until 2035. The TIA also revealed that the intersection treatment upgrade is not required as a result  
of this development.  
Wildlife  
[54]  
The Applicant partnered with Ducks Unlimited Canada in 2017 to establish a long-term plan to  
build and manage the permanent 40-acre buffer area for wildlife and vegetation habitat. In June 2018 a  
site investigation was conducted, and a 40-acre buffer area with berms is proposed to provide adequate  
vertical cover and density to promote nesting habitat. A dense cover will be planted and managed to act as  
scent and visual barriers between birds and potential predators.  
[55]  
Both wildlife habitat and continued rotational grazing will be provided, based on sound science  
and ecological knowledge by Ducks Unlimited. The permanent buffer will encourage and increase  
wildlife use on the property. Rotational grazing has been offered since 2013 and will continue to be  
offered in sections where gravel operations are not being conducted.  
[56]  
In summary, the Applicant has addressed the Appellants’ issues and requested the appeals be  
denied and the DP issued.  
Page 13  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
FINDINGS  
1. There was insufficient evidence to determine the project’s impact on the Appellants’ property  
values.  
2. AEP approval, if granted, will address impact on quality and quantity of water in the aquifer.  
3. The berm will mitigate noise levels; however, the Applicant’s representation that crushing will  
occur only in the northwest portion of the site should be included as a condition.  
4. The dust mitigation conditions are expected to control dust levels to alleviate the impact.  
5. The traffic generated by the development will be to the north, away from the Appellants, and the  
intersection upgrade at Hwy 584 will have a positive impact.  
6. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the development will negatively impact the  
ecosystem and wildlife in the area, and it is expected that the remediation of the existing wetland  
will have a positive impact.  
7. The conditions of approval, and the provision for review after five years, will mitigate the  
cumulative impacts from the addition of another gravel pit in the immediate area.  
DECISION  
[57]  
The conditional approval of the DA is upheld; however, an additional condition is added, as  
follows:  
STANDARD CONDITIONS:  
1. The provisions of the Land Use Bylaw No. 21/21.  
2. Approval by the approving authority does not exclude the need and/or requirements of the  
Permittee to obtain any and all other permits as may be required by this or any other  
legislation, bylaws, or regulations.  
3. The Development Officer may, by notice in writing, suspend a Development Permit where  
development has occurred in contravention to the terms and conditions of the permit and/or  
Land Use Bylaw.  
4. If the development authorized by a Development Permit is not complete within twenty-four  
(24) months from the effective date of the Permit, such Permit approval ceases and the Permit  
itself is deemed void, expired and without effect, unless an extension to this period has been  
previously granted.  
STANDARD CONDITIONS IF APPLICABLE:  
5. N/A  
6. All access approaches must be to County standards. A no charge approach permit is required  
and can be obtained at the Mountain View County office.  
7. N/A  
8. N/A  
9. N/A  
10. A rural address is required to be posted on the property. The landowner shall contact  
Mountain View County to obtain a rural address and the requirements for posting it on the  
property as per the Rural Addressing Bylaw.  
11. No development shall be constructed, placed or stored over an easement or utility right of  
way; the applicant/landowner is responsible for contacting Alberta-One-Call and/or other  
governing authority.  
Page 14  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
PERMITS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING CONSTRUCTION:  
12. Permittees are advised that they are subject to standards of the Safety Codes Act of Alberta  
and are responsible to meet the requirements of the Act in regards to building, electrical, gas,  
plumbing, and private sewage disposal systems. Prior to construction required permits must  
be obtained from Mountain View County. Mountain View County shall not be responsible or  
liable in any manner whatsoever for any structural failures, defects or deficiencies whether or  
not the said development has complied with the Safety Codes Act of Alberta.  
ADDITIONAL CONDITION(S):  
13. Regular Hours of Operation for the gravel pit including stripping and stockpiling, aggregate  
extraction, loading, crushing, hauling and truck traffic shall be Monday thru Saturday 7:00  
a.m. to 7.00 p.m. No operation of the pit shall occur on Sundays or Statutory holidays. Hours  
of Operation shall be strictly adhered to.  
14. On the occasion that the applicant, landowner and/or operator wishes to extend the hours of  
operation for crushing purposes other than the hours specified in Condition 13, the operator  
shall obtain and submit to Mountain View County written consent from the majority of  
adjacent landowners within a half (1/2) mile of the subject property.  
15. Crushing operations shall be restricted to the northwest portion of the parcel (Sections 3 and 4  
as indicated in the application).  
16. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall provide dust control within the operation of  
the gravel pit to ensure there is no adverse impact to adjacent landowners and residences.  
17. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall install an identification sign at the entrance of  
the gravel pit. This sign must be legible and shall include the name of the pit, the legal land  
descriptions and rural address information, contact information, and Hours of Operation.  
18. Soils shall be separated into topsoil and subsoil piles. All piles and berms shall be seeded to  
prevent the contents from being blown off-site and shall be used for reclamation purposes  
within the pit.  
19. Asphalt plants are not permitted to be placed within SE 35-32-6-5. Should this be required, a  
new Development Permit shall be obtained from the County. Wet scrubber systems shall not  
be allowed through the permitting process for portable batch plants.  
20. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall observe and practice the standard Code of  
Practice for Pits as described within the “A Guide to the Code of Practice for Pits” published  
by Alberta Environment.  
21. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall implement the phasing and reclamation plan  
consistent with their submitted application for the SE 35-32-6-5 and return the pit back to  
agricultural use. Any additional uses for the subject property shall require the issuance of  
permits from Mountain View County. A maximum of 30 acres in total shall be disturbed at  
any one time (excluding access roads); the remainder of the pit shall either remain in its  
natural/original state or reclaimed.  
22. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall conform to the noise control methods  
identified within Section 6.7.1 of “A Guide to the Code of Practice for Pits” published by  
Alberta Environment.  
23. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall obtain all provincial registration/ approvals  
from Alberta Environment and Parks for the gravel pit and wash plant proposed within SE  
35-32-6-5.  
24. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall restrict the use of engine retarder brakes  
within the pit operating area.  
25. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall dispose of any chemicals collected and  
contained on site at an approved waste facility in a timely manner to prevent possible soil  
contamination. Any contamination clean up shall be the responsibility of the applicant,  
landowner and/or operator.  
Page 15  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
26. Subject to obtaining a Fire Permit, the applicant, landowner and/or operator shall be limited  
to burn Class A material (ordinary combustible materials that burn with an ember and leave  
an ash) on site, within a self-contained metal bin to allow for ash to be removed and disposed  
of properly.  
27. Positive drainage shall be maintained throughout the life of the pit and shall be in  
consultation with Mountain View County.  
28. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall ensure that all truckers and/or contractors are  
aware of and comply with the conditions of this Development Permit relating to the operation  
of the gravel pit.  
29. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall comply with the Mountain View County’s  
Community Aggregate Payment Levy Bylaw.  
30. This permit shall be reviewed by administration every five (5) years to confirm compliance  
with the above conditions and the Operating Regulations. In addition, and as part of the  
Administrative compliance review, the applicant, landowners and/or operator shall submit to  
Administration an up to date activities plan with a site plan containing the following  
information: Total Pit Area, Active Pit Area, Reclaimed Area, Certified Area from the  
Registration with Alberta Environment.  
31. The Aggregate Extraction/Processing - Gravel Pit (121.22 acres (49.05 hectares)) is approved  
for dry pit extraction only including a Wash Plant requiring approval from Alberta  
Environment and Parks.  
32. All trucks leaving the pit shall be free of material outside of the haul box of the vehicle.  
33. The berms shall be constructed as per the submitted application and shall be completed  
within 24 months of issuance of the permit. The berms shall remain for the life of the pit.  
34. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall implement weed control measures for the  
berms and shall seed the berms to prevent the contents from being blown off site. The berms  
shall be used for reclamation purposes within the pit.  
35. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall maintain 165 meter setback from any  
dwelling.  
36. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall ensure all gravel pit operations meet required  
setbacks as determined by Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).  
37. A final reclamation certificate shall be obtained from Alberta Environment and submitted to  
Mountain View County upon completion/reclamation of the gravel pit area.  
38. The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall, to the satisfaction of the County, hard surface  
and maintain the approach to a paved standard, from the property line connecting to the  
Range Road 61 road surface. This shall be completed prior to hauling to third party locations  
and the applicant, landowner and/or operator shall contact the County for an inspection once  
complete.  
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE CONDITIONS:  
39. Prior to Issuance of the Development Permit the applicant, landowner and/or operator shall  
enter into a Road Construction Agreement with Mountain view County for the required  
upgrade to the intersection of Highway 584 and Range Road 61. The Road Construction  
Agreement shall include securities to be obtained to ensure completion of the intersection.  
The applicant, landowner and/or operator shall be permitted to use materials from the SE 35-  
32-6-5 to complete the required intersection improvements. Hauling to third party locations  
shall not be permitted until such time as the intersection is completed.  
40. Prior to Issuance of the Development Permit the applicant, landowner and/or operator shall  
enter into a Road Use/Haul Route Agreement for all pit operations from the pit within the SE  
35-32-6-5 along Range Road 61 to Highway 584.  
Page 16  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
REASONS  
[58]  
While Council recently redesignated this area to allow for AE&P, this use is still listed as  
discretionary use, and it is appropriate to consider the impacts of the proposal on neighbouring properties  
and the community to ensure its suitability for this location. Several concerns were raised in this regard by  
the Appellants and other area land owners; however, as discussed below, the LPRT finds the conditions  
adequately address the anticipated impacts of the proposal.  
Property Values  
[59]  
There are already a number of gravel pits in the immediate area, and it would be expected that  
they would be considered by prospective purchasers. However, while many community members are  
apprehensive about its effect, there was no empirical evidence to show how the proposal is likely to affect  
property values, only expressed opinions. Further, while the subject proposal is closer to the Appellants,  
the conditions of the DP require mitigation measures that are greater than what is in place for the existing  
pits. Accordingly, the LPRT determined there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a loss in property  
values arising from the approval of the DP.  
Water  
[60]  
The Applicant’s approval for 7000 m3/year is less than the amount six households could use,  
which the LPRT has no reason to believe is excessive. Further, the LPRT is satisfied the AEP approval  
process will protect the residents’ water quality and quantity. A licence under the Water Act must be  
granted for the wash plant to operate, and this approval process would consider whether the fines (i.e. silt)  
from washing are considered contaminants and whether there will be impacts on the aquifer. An  
additional monitoring well was also installed closer to the residents and will provide an early indication of  
negative impacts if they occur.  
Noise  
[61]  
The LPRT finds the proposed berming satisfies the LUB requirement for noise mitigation;  
however, in view of the minimal 165 m distance to residences and the positive impact of greater distance  
to reduce sound, as well as the level of noise generated by crushing operations, the LPRT determined that  
the stated intent of the Applicant to only operate crushers in the northwest portion of the parcel should be  
included as a condition of DP approval. The conditions require the berms to be completed in 24 months,  
which some residents viewed as excessive. While the LPRT understands the residents’ concerns, it sees  
the timing requirement appropriate given the need to source appropriate materials for the berms, their  
size, and the importance of constructing them properly.  
Dust  
[62]  
The conditions require the active excavation area to be no greater than 30 acres, and the  
Applicant indicated with the increased number of phases, the active area is expected to be smaller. The  
conditions require ongoing reclamation and dust control; therefore, the LPRT expects that negative  
impacts from dust will be mitigated.  
Traffic  
[63]  
The haul route from the subject property is north on RR 61 to Hwy 584, away from the  
Appellants who are located to the south of the proposal. While the additional traffic on RR61 will  
increase to some extent, it will not pass the Appellants’ lands or other acreages south of the pit. Further,  
Page 17  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
upgrade of the intersection of RR 61 and Hwy 584, which was determined to be required even without the  
proposed DP, would be expected to have a positive impact on traffic in the area.  
Wildlife and Ecosystem  
[64]  
No evidence was submitted with respect to negative impacts on wildlife and the ecosystem, only  
questions as to whether there would be negative impacts. The Applicant advised that efforts to reclaim  
and improve waterfowl habitat around the existing water body have been initiated. Accordingly, the  
LPRT determined that with appropriate mitigation, the proposal would not have an undue negative impact  
on wildlife and the ecosystem.  
Cumulative Impacts  
[65]  
As the DA pointed out, the ALSA plan for this area has not yet been approved, leaving the LUP  
provisions in effect. Although the LUP does not mention cumulative effects explicitly, the cumulative  
effects of development in an area could still affect its goals and policies. Regardless, it is appropriate to  
consider cumulative effects on the community and surrounding lands and uses, since their impact will  
help determine whether a proposed development is suitable for a given location.  
[66]  
The LPRT recognizes there are a number of gravel pits in the immediate area, and an additional  
pit will contribute to the overall effects of existing gravel extraction on the community. Having said this,  
Council specifically redistricted this land to include AE&P as a discretionary use, and the LUB clearly  
anticipates a potential for additional development of this type. While the numerous negative impacts cited  
by the Appellants must be considered, the LPRT finds the conditions of approval adequately mitigate  
their combined effects in this case - whether considered from the perspective of the proposed  
development itself, or in the context of the effects of existing pits and other development in the area.  
Redesignation and Permitting Process  
[67]  
With respect to concerns raised by one Appellant as to the conduct of municipal councillors, the  
LPRT notes the particular members who were alleged to have a conflict of interest do not appear to have  
been present at the MPC meeting where the permit was approved. In any event, the LPRT’s role does not  
extend to supervising the redesignation process or the general conduct of council members, and the  
LPRT’s findings and decision are based on the applicable legislation together with evidence concerning  
the planning merits of the proposal.  
Conclusion  
[68]  
It is clear that the County’s MDP, ASP, LUB, as well as the LUP, provide for resource extraction,  
which, by its nature, must occur where the resource is located. While the existing residential use is clearly  
impacted by an additional gravel pit in closer proximity, the LPRT finds the mitigation measures required  
as conditions of approval are appropriate to alleviate negative impacts. It is noted that the conditions  
require extraction to proceed in a controlled fashion and to be followed by reclamation; further, the  
approval is subject to review after five years, and additional measures may be determined to be  
appropriate at that time.  
Page 18  
File No. D22/MOUN/CO-026-034  
Decision No. LPRT2022/MG1221  
Other Approvals  
[69]  
The landowner/developer is responsible for all other applicable permits or approvals required by  
other enactments (for example, Water Act, Nuisance and General Sanitation Regulation, building permit,  
etc.) from the appropriate authority. The LPRT is neither granting nor implying any approvals other than  
that of the development permit. Any other approvals are beyond the LPRT’s scope of a development  
appeal. Satisfaction of such requirements are the responsibility of the landowner/developer.  
Dated at the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta this 24th day of August, 2022.  
LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TRIBUNAL  
__________________________________________  
(SGD.) H. Kim, Member  
Page 19  
APPENDIX A  
PARTIES WHO ATTENDED, MADE SUBMISSIONS OR GAVE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING  
NAME  
CAPACITY  
J. Ross  
DA Representative  
M. Bloem  
R. Killeleagh  
R. Tudor  
DA Representative  
Appellant 1  
Appellant 2  
N. Konner  
C. McCharles  
J. Roberts  
T. Fankhauser  
A. Johnson  
L. Young  
J. Young  
Appellant 3  
Appellant 4  
Appellant 5  
Appellant 6 Representative  
Appellant 9  
Affected Person  
Affected Person  
D. McGee  
G. Woolley  
M. Arnill  
Area landowner, Coyote Creek Condo Association, observer  
Area landowner, Coyote Creek Condo Association, observer  
Applicant Representative, West-Can Seal Coating Ltd.  
Consultant for Applicant  
K. Hugo  
A. Forhan  
Observer, West-Can Seal Coating Ltd.  
APPENDIX B  
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE HEARING  
NO.  
ITEM  
PAGES  
1A1  
2A2  
Killeleagh Appeal  
Tudor Appeal  
4 pp  
3 pp  
3A3  
4A4  
5A5  
Konner Appeal  
McCharles Appeal  
Roberts Appeal  
25 pp  
19 pp  
3 pp  
6A6  
7A7  
Fankhauser Appeal  
Coward Appeal  
4 pp  
9 pp  
8A8  
Schultz Appeal  
3 pp  
9A9  
Johnson Appeal  
3 pp  
10R  
11R  
Information Package  
DA Presentation  
Schultz Submission  
Schultz Photo 1  
Schultz Photo 2  
Schultz Photo 3  
Schultz Photo 4  
Water Act  
A guide to the code of practice pits  
South McDougal Flats ASP  
634 pp  
20 pp  
3 pp  
12A8  
13A8  
14A8  
15A8  
16A8  
17A3  
18A3  
19A3  
1 pp  
1 pp  
1 pp  
1 pp  
140 pp  
82 pp  
79 pp  
20A3  
21A3  
22A3  
23A3  
24A3  
25A3  
26A3  
27A3  
28R  
Alberta Land Stewardship Act  
56 pp  
9pp  
Establishing of Committees of Council Bylaw 1320  
Bylaw 1321 Community Aggregate Payment Levy  
Bylaw 09222 Council Code of Conduct  
File Closed Konner 2022015  
File Closed Konner 20220033  
Map 1  
6 pp  
14 pp  
1 pp  
1 pp  
1pp  
Map 2 Notice of Decision June 16 2022  
Adjacent Landowner Circulation List  
1 pp  
5 pp  
APPENDIX C  
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AT THE HEARING  
NO.  
ITEM  
PAGES  
29R  
30A3  
Mountain View County Land Use Bylaw No. 21/21  
Petition  
313 pp  
7 pp  
APPENDIX D  
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.  
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).  
Subdivision and Development Appeal Regulation  
Appeals removed from list  
2(1) The following are removed from the list of circumstances where a notice of appeal of a decision of a  
development authority may be filed with the Land and Property Rights Tribunal:  
(a) an appeal where the land that is the subject of the application is within the Green Area as  
classified by the Minister responsible for the Public Lands Act, as referred to in section  
685(2.1)(a)(i)(A) of the Act;  
(b) an appeal where the land that is the subject of the application 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, as referred to in section 685(2.1)(a)(i)(B) of the Act.  
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the appeals referred to in subsection (1) may be commenced by  
filing a notice of appeal with the subdivision and development appeal board.  
(3) If the land that is the subject of an appeal referred to in subsection (1) is subject to a licence, permit,  
approval or other authorization referred to in section 685(2.1)(a)(i)(C) or (D) of the Act, then, despite  
subsection (1), the appeal may be commenced by filing a notice of appeal with the Land and Property  
Rights Tribunal.  
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to an appeal if the notice of appeal was filed with the Land and  
Property Rights Tribunal before the coming into force of this section.  
PROVINCIAL LAND USE POLICIES  
6.0 RESOURCE CONSERVATION  
6.2  
Non-renewable Resources  
Goal  
To contribute to the efficient use of Alberta's non-renewable resources.  
Policies  
1. Municipalities are encouraged to identify, in consultation with the appropriate provincial land  
management agency and the Alberta Geological Survey, areas where the extraction of surface  
materials (e.g., sand and gravel) should be a primary land use.  
...  
3. Municipalities are encouraged to direct subdivision and development activity so as not to  
constrain or conflict with non-renewable resource development, particularly with respect to the  
areas identified in accordance with policies #1 and #2.  
4. In addressing resource development municipalities are expected to, within the scope of their  
jurisdiction, utilize mitigative measures to minimize possible negative impacts on surrounding  
areas and land uses.  
MUNICIPAL BYLAWS AND STATUTORY PLANS  
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN  
8.0  
NATURAL RESOURCES  
MVC has significant natural resources including, but not limited to, sand, gravel, oil, gas, and  
forests. The extraction and/or harvesting of these resources are generally controlled through  
provincial legislation. The transportation of these resources utilizes both county and provincial  
roads. It is important for the County to maintain communication with the resource companies and  
provincial legislative bodies to allow for the planned and managed extraction of the resources to  
ensure the social and environmental impacts are minimized and mitigated.  
8.1  
8.2  
GOALS  
8.1.1 To allow for well-planned and managed extraction of the natural resources in MVC.  
8.1.2 To recognize extraction of resources as an interim land use requiring appropriate and  
timely reclamation.  
OBJECTIVES  
8.2.1 To facilitate the timely and economic extraction/harvesting of natural resources, with the  
minimum amount of impact on neighbouring lands and infrastructure.  
8.2.2 To facilitate a high level of ongoing communication with all resource companies doing  
work in the County.  
8.2.3 To ensure that industry shall be responsible for road construction and/or maintenance and  
any potential damage to County roads as a result of resource related activity.  
8.2.4 To minimize and mitigate negative impacts on County residents and the environment.  
8.3 POLICIES  
8.3.1 Extraction of natural resources, particularly sand and gravel deposits, prior to the  
subdivision and/or development of the lands for other uses shall be encouraged.  
8.3.2 Applications for new or expansion of existing aggregate extraction/processing shall be  
subject to redesignation and the provisions of the Land Use Bylaw.  
8.3.3 All applications for resource extraction shall be required to address potential impacts on  
adjacent land uses including but not be limited to dust and other airborne pollutants,  
noise, hours of operation, and traffic generation, and groundwater.  
8.3.4 The County shall work with natural resource extraction industry to coordinate planning,  
growth and development in the County.  
8.3.5 Buffering and screening between the natural resource extraction industry and adjacent  
uses may be required when development permits are applied for.  
8.3.6 The County shall require that natural resource extraction operators enter into a road use  
agreement, whether or not development approval from the County is required. A road use  
agreement with a neighbouring municipality may also be required.  
8.3. 7 All-natural resource extraction operations shall adhere to all Provincial standards and a  
reclamation certificate from Alberta Environment may be required. All sites shall be  
reclaimed to the satisfaction of MVC and/or Alberta Environment.  
8.3.8 Reclamation plans may include returning the land to a developable state rather than the  
original natural state if the lands are located in a growth centre.  
8.3.9 Future ASPs shall consider the impacts of natural resource extraction operations on  
adjacent lands.  
8.3.10 A proactive approach to public consultation in the form of a community notice,  
preparation of land use plans, and community education programs shall be required by  
the resource extraction industry in order to work within the County.  
8.3.11 The County will implement all Provincial regulations detailing the type and location of  
land uses adjacent to sour gas facilities.  
LAND USE BYLAW NO. 21/21  
10.11.a Aggregate Extraction/Processing  
1. Aggregate Extraction/Processing shall be subject to the provisions of this Bylaw and applicable  
policies and procedures of Council and shall require community consultation as outlined in Section  
4.5. All developments shall comply with Alberta Environment Code of Practice.  
2. The Approving Authority may consider Provincial and/or Federal involvement in determining the  
conditions of any development approvals in order to minimize the impact on adjacent developments  
and on the environment.  
3. Aggregate Extraction/Processing operations shall be required to undertake phased reclamation, to  
the satisfaction of the County and relevant government agencies or departments, all lands affected  
by the operations.  
4. Aggregate extraction shall not be permitted within a 165.0 m (541.3 ft) radius of an existing  
dwelling, nor shall a dwelling be permitted within a 165.0 m (541.3 ft) radius of an aggregate  
extraction operation. This minimum setback requirement shall not be applicable if an existing  
dwelling is on the same parcel as a proposed aggregate resource extraction operation. If the adjacent  
lot does not contain a dwelling, then the radius will apply to the applicable minimum setback  
distance for the relevant Country Residential district in which the lot is designated.  
5. The Approving Authority may impose the following conditions pertaining to Aggregate  
Extraction/Processing:  
a) standard hours of operation;  
b) parameters of operation depth, total area available to develop;  
c) setbacks from roads, residential and other developments, including reciprocal setbacks limiting  
development encroaching existing aggregate operations;  
d) buffering and noise attenuation;  
e) road use agreements and/or development service agreements;  
f) reclamation schedules;  
g) environmental protection measures in accordance with an approved County policy;  
h) review and/or reapplication of the Development Permit every five (5) years; and  
i) any other matters deemed necessary by the Approving Authority.  
6. The Approving Authority shall require the applicant to submit a Comprehensive Site Development  
Plan (CSDP) for Aggregate Extraction/Processing proposals with the application form. For  
Redesignation applications, Sections 1 through 6 of the CSDP shall be submitted and Sections 7  
through 10 of the CSDP shall be submitted for the Development Permit. The CSDP includes, but  
is not limited to, the following information:  
a) Introduction and location of site area;  
b) Purpose of the Comprehensive Site Development Plan (CSDP);  
c) Objectives of the CSDP;  
d) Community Consultation;  
e) Area Context - which includes information regarding the surrounding land uses, residences  
within the local area, topographical features, waterbodies, pipelines, right-of-way, power lines  
and access roads/highways;  
f) Transportation - all trucks leaving the pit shall be free of materials outside of the haul box of  
the vehicle and shall identify the proposed haul route, traffic generation, access roads and  
highways;  
g) Development Details - which includes details regarding the existing facilities on site, proposed  
facilities, activities occurring within the pit, phasing plan, identified access/loading areas,  
volume of material being extracted, proposed equipment utilization, soil conservation and  
erosion control;  
h) Signage and Advertising;  
i) Environmental - which includes spill contingency plans and locations of fuel storage and  
refueling onsite plan; and  
j) Provincial Consultations and Status - information regarding consultation and approvals with  
Federal and Provincial Approving Authorities (as applicable).  
7. When Aggregate Extraction/Processing is proposed within an environmentally significant area, the  
applicant shall submit a detailed environmental site assessment and mitigation plan in support of  
the proposed development. Additional reports and studies may be required by the Approving  
Authority to facilitate the evaluation and assessment of the application in accordance with approved  
County policy.  
8. Sound mitigation measures shall be required for all aggregate extraction activities.  
9. The proposed haul route must be approved by the Operations Department, with appropriate security  
requirements, prior to the issuance of the Development Permit. Any delivery of aggregate material  
within four (4) miles of the gravel pit location shall be considered local delivery and shall be limited  
to a maximum of six (6) loads per legal land location. Loads exceeding six (6) will require issuance  
of a separate road use agreement.  
10. The Approving Authority may require a review of the Development Permit every five (5) years for  
compliance.  
11. A Development Permit is required for a portable batch plant to be located on a property where  
Aggregate Extraction/Processing Development (Existing) is listed as an exempt use, as part of the  
Operating Regulations. Wet scrubber systems shall not be allowed through the permitting process  
for portable batch plants.  
14.3 AEP Aggregate Extraction/Processing District  
Purpose  
To permit the removal, extraction, processing and transmission of raw aggregate materials for  
commercial purposes.  
Uses  
a) The following uses shall be permitted or discretionary with or without conditions provided the  
application complies with the regulations of this district and this Bylaw.  
...  
DISCRETIONARY  
Aggregate Extraction/Processing  
...  
Berming  
Site Regulations  
b) The following regulations shall apply to every development in this district.  
PARCEL AREA  
For all Permitted and Discretionary Uses, the minimum and maximum parcel area requirements  
shall be determined by the Approving Authority, and if applicable, in accordance with an Area  
Structure Plan and Concept Plan.  
FRONT YARD - including excavation & stockpile areas  
Permanent Structures shall adhere to minimum Site Regulations as per the Agricultural District.  
Aggregate Extraction shall meet Alberta Environment’s requirements for Code of Practice for  
Gravel Pits.  
REAR YARD- including excavation & stockpile areas  
Permanent Structures shall adhere to minimum Site Regulations as per the Agricultural District.  
Aggregate Extraction shall meet Alberta Environment’s requirements for Code of Practice for  
Gravel Pits.  
SIDE YARD- including excavation & stockpile areas  
Permanent Structures shall adhere to minimum Site Regulations as per the Agricultural District.  
Aggregate Extraction shall meet Alberta Environment’s requirements for Code of Practice for  
Gravel Pits.  
SETBACK FROM EXISTING ADJACENT DWELLINGS  
165.0 m (541.3 ft) from the dwelling unit. Sound mitigation measures shall be required.  
CORNER PARCEL In accordance with Subsection 9.6.  
YARDS SETBACKS FROM EXISTING & PROPOSED HIGHWAYS & SERVICE ROADS  
As determined by Alberta Transportation  
OTHER SETBACKS  
CFOs: As determined by the Agricultural Operations Practice Act (AOPA)  
Pipelines and Oil & Gas Facilities: consistent with current provincial regulations  
BUILDING HEIGHT  
Security Suite: Maximum 4.0 m (13.0 ft)  
For all other Permitted and Discretionary Uses: Limited to such height as is deemed suitable and  
appropriate for the intended use  
SECURITY SUITE FLOOR AREA Maximum 55.7 m2 (600.0 ft2) - a variance may be allowed for  
existing dwellings  
SECURITY SUITE DENSITY One (1) security suite may be allowed.  
FENCES, GATES, SIGNS On the property line for fences, gates, other means of enclosure, and signs  
Other Development Regulations  
c) A Comprehensive Site Development Plan (CSDP) shall be prepared for all applications. Sections  
1 through 6 of the CSDP shall be submitted for Redesignation proposals and sections 1 through 10  
of the CSDP shall be submitted for the Development Permit. Determination of the size of the  
disturbance area will be essential with the Redesignation application.  
d) Community Consultation shall be required for all Aggregate Extraction and Processing  
Redesignation and Development Permit applications. The minimum consultation circulation radius  
from the parcel boundary for Aggregate Extraction/Processing applications shall be 1.6 kilometres  
(1.0 mile) and shall be 0.8 kilometres (0.5 mile) from the boundary of the proposed Haul Route.  
The Community Consultation shall be completed prior to submission of an application and  
confirmation that the community consultation was completed shall be submitted to the County with  
submission of an application. The Community Consultation for the Redesignation can be used as  
part of submission of the Development Permit if the Development Permit application is submitted  
within one (1) year from the date of redesignation approval. If the Development Permit is submitted  
more than one (1) year after the date of redesignation approval, a new Community Consultation  
shall be required.  
e) Aggregate Extraction/Processing shall not be permitted within a 165.0 m (541.3 ft) radius of an  
existing dwelling, nor shall a dwelling be permitted within a 165.0m (541.3 ft) radius of an  
aggregate resource extraction operation. This minimum setback requirement shall not be applicable  
if an existing dwelling is on the same parcel as a proposed natural extraction operation. If the  
adjacent lot does not contain a dwelling, then the radius will apply to the applicable minimum  
setback distance for the relevant district in which the lot is designated.  
f) Buffer zones in the form of fencing, landscaping, or berming shall be required.  
g) Haul Route Agreements and a security deposit for the roads being affected by the hauling route  
shall be required.  
h) The Community Aggregate Levy is applicable.  
i) All trucks leaving the pit shall be free of materials outside of the haul box of the vehicle.  
j) Heavy Equipment Training Facilities shall not be permitted when timely reclamation of the pit  
would be negatively affected.  
k) As a condition of subdivision or development approval, the County may require guaranteed security  
to ensure the timely completion of the subdivision and/or development approval conditions as per  
Section 5.4.  
l) Permitted and Discretionary Uses shall adhere to PART 4 - RULES GOVERNING ALL  
DISTRICTS.  
(i) For General Regulations refer to Section 9.0.  
(ii) For Specific Use Regulations refer to Section 10.0.  
SOUTH MCDOUGAL FLATS AREA STRUCTURE PLAN BYLAW 02/10  
9.2  
Natural Resources Extraction  
9.2.1 Goals  
a) To extract resources in an environmentally friendly manner.  
b) To recognize the importance of gravel to the County and Provincial economies.  
c) To recognize extraction as an interim land use requiring appropriate and timely reclamation.  
9.2.2 Objectives  
a) To ensure reclamation plans are in place for new pits with an after use that is beneficial to the  
community and in keeping with the intent of this Plan.  
b) To encourage reclamation of existing pits.  
c) To ensure that gravel pit owners work with the County and the community in designing  
reclamation plans.  
d) To design gravel extraction and reclamation to allow for future airport runway extensions,  
particularly the east-west cross wind runway.  
9.2.3 Policies  
a) Natural resource extraction activities are considered an interim use rather than an ultimate or  
final land use within the plan area.  
b) Extraction of natural resources, particularly sand and gravel deposits, prior to subdivision and  
development of the lands for other uses shall be encouraged.  
c) All future gravel extraction will require the appropriate approvals from government agencies.  
The County will utilize conditions upon development approvals in order to minimize the  
impacts on adjacent developments, the community and the environment.  
d) Reclamation plans should include returning the land to a state as intended by this Plan (Figure  
7 - Land Use Concept). Alternative uses shall be considered if it is not feasible to establish an  
after use in accordance with Figure 7. This consideration shall be addressed and reviewed  
through the required approvals process.  
e) Natural resource extraction will occur in accordance with the permitting requirements under  
County By-law 30/08, all relevant Bylaws and the Natural Resources policies within the MDP.  
f) Progressive reclamation is encouraged and proponents shall be required to demonstrate the  
intended plan through the development permitting process.  
g) Reclamation plans shall include detailed concept plans showing the conceptual after-use design  
for the licensed parcel. Reclamation plans shall be subject to a comprehensive public  
consultation program.  


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