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 DA’S 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 Appellants’ submission 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 Appellants’ concerns 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 APPELLANTS’ POSITIONS  
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