Stettler County and developer clash over stop work order for controversial RV park

Stettler County has issued a stop work order on a controversial RV park on the shores of Buffalo Lake for what it calls serious concerns over the health and safety of users and possible harm to the environment.

Paradise Shores was slashed from 750 sites to 168 by a development appeal board last year, but the developer had already sold leases — and RVs were already on the site. The developer has sought to have the Alberta Court of Appeal order the board to revisit that decision, but a judge has reserved judgment at this time.

The county said it heard that Paradise Shores, owned by Calgarian David Hamm, told leaseholders they could move their RVs back onto the still-developing property in time for the May long weekend this year, despite not complying with county conditions set by the appeal board.

Paradise Shores, through its lawyer, Robert Schuett, disputes the allegation that leaseholders were allowed to occupy the site.

Still, the county says that is what prompted it to conduct an inspection of the site, which resulted in an order that the RVs be removed and construction stopped.

"There is a significant state of non-compliance with the property at this point, and until we can get that corrected, we are concerned that there could be some negative impacts on the people using the site and the environment," said Cara McKenzie, the county's development officer.

Water systems and slopes

Some of the concerns outlined by the county for the lakeside site include the installation and use of unapproved water and sewage systems, insufficient slope stabilization and lack of access for emergency vehicles.

The county said the developer has been either unwilling or unable to hand over required documents, including geotechnical studies and Alberta environment approvals.

"A developer has as much time as he needs to address these issues. What's holding everybody back is the requirement of these conditions must be met before overnight accommodation or day use of the site," said McKenzie.

"So the county is certainly willing to let the developer take as much time as he needs to gain compliance but we are not willing to risk the health and safety of people before that compliance is gained."

RVs that were within 30 metres of a slope had to be removed immediately, while the owners of the remaining RVs had 30 days to vacate the lands.

Developer disputes allegations

In written responses to questions, Paradise Shore's lawyer said the company believe the development appeal board erred in its ruling to cut the size of the development.

"Paradise Shores will comply with the conditions that are imposed upon it in a final ruling regarding a development permit that accurately reflects the intended development. At this time, it is the position of Paradise Shores that there is no such permit," reads the letter from Schuett.

He said approvals from provincial agencies cannot be completed until a development permit has been issued and that those agencies have stated they will not release approvals until after the Court of Appeal renders a final decision.

The county, in its inspection report, noted RVs are connected to both the waste water and potable water systems that appear to be "fully constructed" without the appropriate permits.

Paradise Shores also disputes there are issues with slope stability in the development, but said it would need more time to answer a question on whether there was a study showing those slopes are stable.

Controversial from the start

The Paradise Shores development has been controversial from the beginning, when the developer was promoting a sprawling park of 1,000 sites that included a water park and he started marketing and selling the development before receiving a development permit.

Nearby residents chafed at the size of the proposal and showed up to oppose it at county meetings. When the size was reduced to 750 stalls, the opposition didn't subside.

At least one landowner, who lives adjacent to the development, says he's not opposed to the project, as long as it's done right.

"So it's not like we're saying 'no, you need 30 sites and that's it.' This is a big campground, and if done properly, myself and my neighbours are not opposed to it," said Justin Stevens.

"But they're dropping a modest-sized town's worth of population with zero infrastructure and zero permits. We're adamantly opposed to that."

Stevens says not all the blame should be placed on the developer.

"I think initially the county was perhaps lenient and gave the developer a false sense of confidence," he said. "So I wouldn't say that the county is completely innocent in this."

Allegations of fast-tracking

The county was accused of fast-tracking the park, and documents obtained by opponents show the former head of the county's planning department followed an "unconventional process" to get the project approved quickly.

"In the context of the potential benefits of the proposed development to the county, and to try to facilitate your 'aggressive approach,' as people perceive it, I was willing to make certain compromises to the usual process, by referring the applications out to the public before council even saw them, and by trusting that you will deliver on your commitments to undertake the necessary studies and government approvals as we moved along," said Johan van der Bank in the notes of a meeting held on Feb. 27 last year.

Former county planner denies allegations

Van der Bank, who was let go by the county, but not for reasons related to Paradise Shores, has denied any wrongdoing.

"In my experience, the project was not 'fast-tracked' even if a decision was made to start working on formulating the development permit conditions while the area structure plan and rezoning bylaws were being processed and disputed," he wrote in a letter to CBC News.

He said based on feedback from county councillors and county administrators who pointed to the benefits of the project for the area, he worked overtime to ensure it proceeded in an appropriate manner.

"I volunteered many hundreds of hours of overtime during the five months and willingly endured public ridicule and defamation for the sole purpose of responding positively to the developer's goals while ensuring that the project was facilitated within the legislative framework of the Municipal Government Act, the county's statutory plans and the land use bylaw," wrote van der Bank.

He said he believes the development appeal board might have erred in its ruling to reduce the size of the campground and said "this developer has done more studies than any developer in the county before him."

It is not known how long it will take the Court of Appeal to decide on whether or not to hear arguments on the development appeal board's ruling.