Goodwill Enterprises Ltd. has won the right to appeal a Rocky View County decision which, it says, imposed onerous terms and unjustified conditions in issuing its development permit for its new facility site near Conrich.
According to the decision filed by the Honourable Justice Patricia Rowbotham at the Alberta Court of Appeals on Friday, Goodwill Enterprises has met the test in law for making a legal appeal of the County decision.
“In my view, the potential conflict between the provisions of the MGA (and the parallel provision in the Land Use Bylaw) and sections 23.9 and 23.15 of the Conrich Area Structure Plan raises a question of law which is of importance beyond the particular circumstances of Goodwill,” she said in her considerations in approving the appeal.
“I conclude that Goodwill has met the test for permission to appeal,” she concludes.
The dispute arose between Goodwill and the County after Goodwill was given conditional permission to construct a new facility on its newly acquired lands located at 244202 Range Road 285 in Rocky View County.
The condition Goodwill found most onerous was the requirement by the County for the charitable organization to connect to municipal water and sewer infrastructure prior to releasing the permit.
Goodwill Enterprises argued this was unnecessary and overly costly for the organization at this time.
“Goodwill opposed Condition 11 [connecting to sewer and water],” the Court of Appeal decision reads. “It estimated the cost of connecting the proposed building to municipal water and wastewater infrastructure — located roughly 125 meters and 205 meters from the edge of the Lands — to be over $2 million. The connection requires going under a rail line and would involve expensive directional drilling. Goodwill applied to the Board to remove the condition.”
Goodwill then applied to the County’s Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB), which rendered a split decision over some ambiguities in the County’s Land Use Bylaw.
“On July 28, 2023, the Board issued a decision varying Condition 11,” the Court of Appeal backgrounder reads. “The Board agreed that, at the present time, it was not necessary for the proposed development to connect to municipal water and wastewater systems. Given the low intensity of the development, it could currently be serviced by on-site holding tanks.
However, the SDAB admitted there was a basic ambiguity between the County’s Land Use Bylaw and Conrich Area Structure Plan on this point.
“As a result, the Board modified Condition 11 by adding a geographical and temporal requirement for connecting to municipal water and wastewater infrastructure,” the backgrounder explains.
This ambiguity between the County’s master planning documents in this case was the basis of Goodwill’s appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. It is on this basis the court allowed Goodwill to move forward with its case as a test case for other organizations or businesses in the Conrich area which may eventually run into the same ambiguity.
“Permission to appeal is granted on the following grounds,” the court decision reads:
The question is: did the SDAB err in imposing conditions on the issuance of a development permit that did not serve a legitimate planning objective?
Imposing conditions on the issuance of a development permit that were arbitrary and not necessary to serve the development?
And by, failing to read down sections 23.9 and 23.15 of the Conrich Area Structure Plan in face of the inherent conflict with section 107(a) of the Land Use Bylaw and section 650(1)(c) of the MGA?
