MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PARKLAND COUNTY SUBDIVISION AND
DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN THE
COUNTY OFFICE AT PARKLAND COUNTY, ALBERTA ON MONDAY, APRIL 24,
2015.
___________________________________________________________
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairperson, M. Gunderson, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
PRESENT
Members: S. Allen, M. Gunderson, D. Hollands, J. McCuaig, T. Melnyk and J.
Smith.
Legal Representative: C. St. Dennis, Brownlee, LLP.
Recording Secretary: B. Williams, Administrator Legislative & Administration
Services.
Reconvene an appeal, from March 18, 2015 and March 30, 2015, of a
decision of the Development Authority to conditionally approve
Development Permit No. 13-D-349 clay extraction –excavation of clay from
pit at SE-01-54-28-W4M, Municipal Address: 28016 Twp. Rd. 540
Applicant: The Black Dirt Company Appellants: (1) Steve & Catherine
Fournier (2) Barry & Grace Chychul (3) Andrea Scheidl (4) Allan Pecoskie (5)
Wallace & Amanda Middleton (6) Robert Park (7) Lee Parent (on behalf of
group)
The Chairperson opened the Hearing at 8;29 a.m.
The Board discussed the information and evidence on a number of issues
presented at the hearing on April 13, 2015 and deliberated on the finding of
relevant facts, and related legislation.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
BOARD’S FINDING OF RELEVANT FACTS:
Based on the relevant information submitted to the Board, the Board finds
the following facts:
Basis of appeal
There were seven appeals filed with respect to an approval by the Municipal
Planning Commission (the “Development Authority”) of a development
permit application made by Black Dirt Co. for a development permit for a
Natural Resource Extraction/Processing use (Clay Extraction) on the SE-0154-W4 (the “Proposed Site”).
Description of Application
The appeals before the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
(“Board”) all concern the approval by the Development Authority of
Development Permit 13-D-349 (the “Development Permit) for the
development of a Natural Resource Extraction/Processing use (Clay
Extraction) on the SE-01-54-W4. The Development Permit was approved by
the Development Authority on February 2, 2015. The property is zoned CR
Country Residential District in Parkland County Land Use Bylaw 20-2009, as
amended. Natural Resource Extraction/Processing (Clay Extraction) is a
discretionary use in the CR District. The Proposed Site is approximately
62.16 ha (153.61 acres) in size and is bordered in all directions by lands
districted CR-Country Residential District and developed with country
residential subdivisions. To the south and east there are roads (Township
Road 540 and Golf Course Road) between the Proposed Site and the
developed with country residential subdivisions so the developed country
residential subdivisions are not immediately adjacent to the Proposed Site.
Currently the Proposed Site is being farmed. There are hills on the Proposed
Site with a natural gradient from north to south.
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
April 24, 2015
Page 2
The applicant is proposing to remove clay from the Proposed Site. This will
require the removal and stockpiling of top soil and other unsuitable material
in order to access the clay layer. The clay will then be removed and the
unsuitable material and top soil will be replaced. The applicant proposes to
limit the extraction activity to 4 ha (10 acre) cells with reclamation of one
cell being completed before proceeding on to the next cell. The applicant
advised that there would be two pieces of equipment operating on the site.
Clay would be trucked from the site as it is excavated. The speed at which
the clay would be extracted would depend on the market demand for clay.
The applicant indicated that the estimate was that there was in excess of
700,000 m3 of clay that could be removed from the site. To complete the
removal would take between 5 and 7 years, perhaps longer. Depending
again on market demand the applicant estimated that as many as 70
truckloads of clay could be leaving the site during peak operations.
The Development Permit was approved by the Municipal Planning
Commission acting in its capacity as the Development Authority, on February
2, 2015. Notice of the issuance of the decision by the Development
Authority was mailed to adjacent landowners on February 6, 2015.
Adjournments
The hearing was initially convened on March 18, 2015, recessed to March
30, 2015 and then further recessed to April 13, 2015. Submissions were
heard by the Board on April 13, 2015. The hearing was closed on April 13,
2015.
Hearing
The Board heard verbal submissions from:
 K. Kormos, Development Officer, Parkland County
 A. Pecoskie speaking on behalf of Steve & Catherine Fournier,
appellants, in favour of the appeal
 Barry & Grace Chychul, appellants, in favour of the appeal
 Andrea Scheidl, appellants, in favour of the appeal
 Allan Pecoskie, an appellant, in favour of the appeal who had with
him S. Spangler and S. Kapler both affected neighbours
 Wallace & Amanda Middleton, appellant, in favour of the appeal
 Robert Park, appellants, in favour of the appeal
 Lee Parent, appellants, in favour of the appeal
 T. Shuler, an affected neighbour, in favour of the appeal
 Mr. D. Hinkel., representing the applicant, in opposition to the appeal
Summary of Evidence
The Board Agenda package/Board file contains the Development Authority
decision respecting the Development Permit Application and the material
submitted to the Board by the Development Authority, excerpts from
relevant bylaws and policies; power point presentations, written submissions
from the appellants, letters of opposition to the issuance of the
Development Permit and support of the appeals, letters indicating the
writers had “no objections” to the proposed development.. No additional
written material was submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The
applicant relied on the documents submitted as part of the application to
Parkland County and which were attached to the Administration Report
submitted to the Board. Summaries of the oral evidence heard by the Board
are set out in the Minutes of the Meetings for the Parkland County
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board for April 13, 2015.
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
April 24, 2015
Page 3
Decision:
In determining these appeals, the Board:
 complied with the provincial legislation and land use policies; the
Municipal Development Plan, Bylaw 347-2007; and the Parkland
County Land Use Bylaw, Bylaw 20-2009;
 considered all the relevant planning evidence presented at the
hearing and the arguments made; and
 considered the circumstances and merits of the appeals.
A. The appeals are ALLOWED.
B. Development Permit 13-D-349 issued for Clay Extraction approved by the
Development Authority on February 2, 2015 is REVOKED.
Reasons:
The Board considered the written, verbal and photographic evidence
submitted. This included the answers to question Board members asked of
the presenters.
The appeals before the Board all concern the approval by the Development
Authority of Development Permit 13-D-349 for the development of a Natural
Resource Extraction/Processing (Clay Extraction) use on SE-01-54-28-W4.
The property is zoned CR-Country Residential District in Parkland County
Land Use Bylaw 20-2009, as amended.
Natural Resource
Extraction/Processing is a discretionary use in the CR District. The Proposed
Site is approximately 62.16 ha (153.61 acres) in size and is bordered in all
directions by lands districted CR-Country Residential District and developed
with country residential subdivisions. To the south and east there are roads
(Township Road 540 and Golf Course Road) between the Proposed Site and
the land developed with country residential subdivisions so the developed
country residential subdivisions are not immediately adjacent to the
Proposed Site. Currently the Proposed Site is being farmed. There are hills
on the Proposed Site with a natural gradient from north to south.
The applicant is proposing to remove clay from the Proposed Site. This will
require the removal and stockpiling of top soil and other unsuitable material
in order to access the clay layer. The clay will then be removed and the
unsuitable material and top soil will be replaced. The applicant proposes to
limit the extraction activity to 4 ha (10 acre) cells with reclamation of one
cell being completed before proceeding on to the next cell. The applicant
advised that there would be two pieces of equipment operating on the site.
Clay would be trucked from the site as it is excavated. The speed at which
the clay would be extracted would depend on the market demand for clay.
The applicant indicated that the estimate was that there was in excess of
700,000 m3 of clay that could be removed from the site. To complete the
removal would take between 5 and 7 years, perhaps longer. Depending
again on market demand the applicant estimated that as many as 70
truckloads of clay could be leaving the site during peak operations.
Preliminary Issues
Adjournments
The hearing was convened on March 18, 2015, recessed to March 30, 2015
and then further recessed to April 13, 2015. The hearing was recessed on
each occasion because the quorum requirements for the Board were not
met. An insufficient number of Board members were able to be in
attendance on March 18 and 25, 2015.
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
April 24, 2015
Page 4
Composition of the Board
On April 13, 2015 the Chair asked all those in attendance if there was any
opposition to the composition of the Board. There were no objections to
the composition of the Board.
Submission of Written Materials
When the Board convened on March 30, 2015 the direction was given that
all written material should be filed with the Board by April 7, 2015 to allow
time for the written material to be made available to everyone.
Notwithstanding this direction, when the hearing convened on April 13,
2015 the Chair asked if anyone planned to introduce additional written
materials. Two residents indicated that they had additional written
information to present. The information was a copy of a Water Well Drilling
Report and copies of two emails from realtors related to a possible land sale
in the surrounding area. Copies of the information were provided to the
Applicant. The Applicant, was given an opportunity to review the material
and subsequent to that review, advised the Board that the Applicant did not
object to the written documents being submitted to the Board.
Merits
Appellants’ Submissions
On February 14, 19 and 20, 2015 the appellants filed notices of appeal to
appeal the decision of the Development Authority approving the
Development Permit for a Clay Extraction use. Seven appeals were filed.
The appeal notices cited, as reasons for the appeal:
 traffic safety and concerns with the increase in the traffic volumes on
Township Road 540 and Highway 779.;
 reduction in air quality;
 noise from equipment on the site and trucks hauling the clay;
 interference with the amenities of the neighbourhood through the
introduction of a large scale industrial use in country residential area;
 potential adverse impact on the surrounding watercourses;
 adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of property and
 adverse impact on the health of residents as a result of dust and
noise.
The appellants provided detail to the Board with respect to the grounds of
appeal during the course of the hearing. In addition to the reasons for the
appeal listed above, during the course of the hearing the appellants cited
concerns with
 the lack of certainty as to the intensity of the use both from the
perspective of immediate operations and the number of trucks that
would be coming and going from the Proposed Site (ranging from 2570 loaded trucks per day) and from the perspective of how long (i.e.
how many years) the clay extraction activity might take over all;
 the potential impact the removal of the clay would have on the
aquifer and the water wells of residents;
 the inconsistency of the results between the testing done by the
applicant as compared to the results of testing of the same land
done for a proposed country residential subdivision in 2008/2009
(File Number 08-S-024F); Forty-nine bore holes done in 2008 and
showed a very high water table;
 the impact the development might have on Muir Lake, Chickakoo
Lake, the Glory Hills Conservation Lands and other environmentally
significant or sensitive areas;
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
April 24, 2015
Page 5
 the narrowness of Township Road 540 and the difficulties that might
arise if a school bus and gravel truck were to meet on the road; the
concern was that the road width was not sufficient to allow the
school bus and gravel truck to pass each other; and
 inadequacies of deceleration/acceleration lanes on Highway 779.
The appellants stressed that given the nature of the existing country
residential development surrounding the Proposed Site, the proposed clay
extraction use was not appropriate. The appellants identified 131
established country residential lots around the area of the Proposed Site
including the developed subdivisions of Estates on Fifth, Rolling Heights,
Rolling Hills and Oakwood Estates.
Supporting the Appeals
The one non-appellant who spoke supporting the appeals concurred with
the appellants. He noted that he was surprised by the lack of geotechnical
information that was provided and in particular the lack of a hydrogeological
assessment. He expressed the view that mining in residential areas is
inappropriate.
Applicant’s Submissions
Mr. Hinkel indicated that his company has operated without objections in
other already developed neighbourhoods. He stressed that he was willing to
compromise with the neighbours of the Proposed Site and wanted to find a
way to satisfy their concerns although he was unsure what changes would be
necessary to make the residents happy. Mr. Hinkel acknowledged that the
intensity of the development would depend on market demand. He
proposed that the Black Dirt Company would use only its own trucks and
drivers so that the Company could exercise greater control over driver
behavior than might be the case if independent contractors were used. Mr.
Hinkel advised that his company has proven experience in working in
environmentally sensitive areas and mentioned the Wagner environmental
areas. Mr. Hinkel advised that he would work with Parkland County on
establishing a methodology for monitoring noise. Mr. Hinkel suggested that
he might be able to liaise with the local school authority to ensure that
trucks hauling clay were not using Township Road 540 at the same time as
school buses were be operating. Mr. Hinkel indicated the approach to the
property would be gated but that he was unwilling to fence the entire site.
Mr. Hinkel advised the Board that approximately 4 m of clay would be
excavated. The TeckEra Consulting Ltd. Report that was part of the
Development Permit Application advised that 4 test holes had been drilled
on the Proposed Site to a depth of 6 meters. All of the test holes were dry at
the time of drilling and when checked 3 days later. Mr. Hinkel indicated he
was prepared to do more testing of the Proposed Site to try and address the
question of the potentially high water table and the discrepancy between
the results from 4 bore holes drilled on behalf of the Black Dirt Company
and the previous testing.
Supporting the Application/Refusal of the appeal
There were no other speakers in support of the application/in opposition to
the appeals.
The submissions of all of the speakers, whether for or against the appeals,
are summarized in the Minutes of the Meetings for the Parkland County
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board for April 13, 2015.
Analysis
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
April 24, 2015
Page 6
The Board had regard to the following sections of the Land Use Bylaw, Bylaw
20-2009:
Part 6 Glossary
Section 20 Terms and Words
NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION / PROCESSING means development for
the removal, extraction and primary processing of raw materials. Typical
resources and raw materials would include oil and gas, peat, sand, silt and
gravel, shale, clay, marl, limestone, gypsum other minerals precious or semiprecious, timber and coal. Typical facilities or uses would include gravel pits
(and associated crushing operations), asphaltic processing, sand pits, clay or
marl pits, peat extraction, stripping of topsoil, sawmills and related
timber/wood processing.
Part 2 Land Use Districts
5.1
CR - Country Residential District
1. Purpose
To
provide
for
traditional
multi-parcel
country
residential
subdivision/development identified in a statutory plan for that use and
related uses, including minor agricultural pursuits. Subdivision and
development may be serviced by private on-site systems.
2. Uses
PERMITTED
DISCRETIONARY
NOTES
Note: Gray shading denotes Discretionary Uses subject to Development
Authority (excluding Development Officer) Approval
…
Natural
Resource
Extraction/Processing
The Proposed Site is within the boundaries of the Atim Creek North Area
Structure Plan, Bylaw No. 26-2002.
The Board acknowledges the written and oral submissions of all parties. The
Board considered all relevant arguments and relevant evidence whether in
support of or against the appeals of the decision of the Development
Authority.
The proposed use is a Natural Resource Extraction Use. The Proposed Site is
zoned CR-Country Residential District in Parkland County Land Use Bylaw 202009, as amended. Natural Resource Extraction is a discretionary use in the
CR- Country Residential District.
Having considered the provisions of the Land Use Bylaw, the Board has
determined that it has jurisdiction to grant or refuse the Development
Permit depending upon whether the Board is satisfied that the discretionary
use of Natural Resource Extraction (Clay Extraction) is appropriate for the
Proposed Site given relevant planning considerations such as, but not
necessarily limited to, the impact the proposed development will have on
surrounding land uses, the impact of the proposed development on the
environment and the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development.
Based on the evidence presented the Board finds that the proposed use is
not an appropriate use for the Proposed Site. Concerns expressed by the
residents have led the Board to its decision to allow the appeals and revoke
the Development Permit approved by the Development Authority.
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
April 24, 2015
Page 7
The Board finds that the neighbourhood is a traditional country residential
neighbourhood. The Proposed Site is surrounded by country residential
developments which, according to the evidence provided to the Board,
contain 131 (or so) established lots. The Board finds, given the nature of
development on the surrounding lands, that the Proposed Site.is not a
suitable location for the proposed clay extraction use. A clay extraction
operation is an intensive industrial use that is not a suitable use for land
within what clearly is a residential area. There may be CR-Country
Residential lands where a natural extraction use would be appropriate but
the Proposed Site is not such a location.
The Board acknowledges that the County Engineering staff expressed no
concerns regarding the proposed traffic volume and further that the County
staff did not request roadway upgrades if the project was to be approved.
However, the Board was persuaded by the evidence of residents that
whatever deceleration/acceleration lanes there might be at the intersection
of Township Road 540 and Highway 779 for northbound traffic turning from
the highway onto the Township Road are not sufficient for gravel truck
traffic. The Board heard that the intersection has been the site of numerous
accidents and that vehicles have hit the ditch trying to make the turn from
the highway onto the township road. The Board was persuaded that the
Proposed Site is not suitable for development for clay extraction given the
impact of the type of traffic generated by such a development would have in
the area. The Board notes that children wait for the school bus to pick them
up along Township Road 540 and there was considerable discussion during
the hearing about concurrent operation of school buses and gravel trucks.
The Board received contradictory evidence on the water table level on the
Proposed Site. The evidence of the appellants was that 49 boreholes drilled
in 2008/2009 disclosed a very high water table yet the 4 boreholes drilled by
the applicant’s consultants were dry supporting a position that the water
table level was lower than the expected depth of excavation. There was no
clear evidence to assist the Board in assessing what impact the clay
extraction use might have on groundwater. The Board is concerned that if
the water table is impacted by the clay extraction activity there could
potentially be impacts on neighborhood wells and an impact on Muir Lake
(identified in a document prepared for the County, entitled the Parkland
Environmental Conservation Plan, October 2014, as an environmentally
significant area). Without evidence to alleviate these concerns, the Board is
not convinced that the proposed development is suitable for the Proposed
Site.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence before it, the Board is satisfied that the proposed
Natural Resource Extraction (Clay Extraction) use should not be approved for
the Proposed Site. The Board allows the appeals and he Development
Permit approved by the Development Authority on February 2, 2015 is
revoked.
MOTION:
Moved by D. Hollands that the appeals are allowed and Development
Permit No. 13-D-349 is revoked for the reasons stated above.
ADJOURNMENT
The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board
April 24, 2015
Page 8
CHAIRPERSON