Development decision upheld

The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) issued a decision on Tues, June 11 upholding the County of Stettler’s Development Authority decision that a development permit application by Paradise Shores was incomplete.

They submitted the permit on March 28 with 318 campsites or RV stalls as necessary to support the primary use of the property being outdoor recreation facility.

The development permit application was for the lands located at NE 20-40-20 W4M, the lands at Paradise Shores RV Resort.

After reviewing the application, the Development Authority advised the appellant that the application was incomplete.

The County set out the outstanding information and provided a deadline to submit the outstanding information but Paradise Shores did not seek additional time to submit the information or submit outstanding information by the deadline.

Since the permit states permitted use, the county must still determine the nature of the application’s use regardless of what is said in the application.

In other words, to determine whether the application is, in fact, for a permitted use, the Development Authority requires sufficient information to make that determination.

As the application was incomplete, it was deemed refused pursuant to a section of the Municipal Government Act (MGA).

The Appellant has appealed the deemed refusal of the application.

As a recurring theme of incompleteness, the County of Stettler came to the sight for an inspection where they found many of the rules outlined in the first SDAB decision were not being upheld.

Of the 113 RV’s occupying a space, 315 sites were available. This total amount exceeded the SDAB’s original decision of 168 sites for the development.

Other structural issues like landscaping and unsafe sloping were found as well as a lack of emergency escape routes.

A stop work order was issued on May 17 due to these infractions Applications are reviewed on a case by case basis.

The Appellant took the position that apart from a reduction in the number of campsites, the Application was the same as the 2018 Application.

Therefore, the Development Authority should have made its decision based on the documents submitted for the 2018 Application.

The SDAB was of the view that the county is under no obligation to do so. It is open for the Development Authority to request additional information on a subsequent application even if the subsequent application is identical to a previous application.


On July 5, 2018, the Development Authority issued a Development Permit to the Appellant for a Recreation Facility – Outdoor and Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground consisting of 370 campsites (the “2018 Development Permit”).

On November 2, 2018, the Board heard nine appeals related to the first Development Permit.

The Board allowed the appeals in part and imposed a number of conditions on the Development Permit including limiting the number of campsites to 168.

The Appellant has sought permission to appeal the 2018 decision but the

Court has not issued its ruling.

On March 28, 2019, the Appellant submitted the Application.


Terri Huxley

ECA Review

About the author

ECA Review