Branco’s motocross denied provincial appeal

An unauthorized motocross track developed by County of Wetaskiwin residents Andrew and Erika Branco...

An unauthorized motocross track developed by County of Wetaskiwin residents Andrew and Erika Branco, a contentious matter for county council and residents since rezoning the track’s land was denied in early spring, has been denied an appeal before the Court of Appeal of Alberta, Nov. 30, located in Edmonton.

For the Nov. 30 process the couple had to prove there was an error in law in the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board of the County of Wetaskiwin’s decision.

Assistant CAO Rod Hawken said in an interview with the Pipestone Flyer Dec. 9 it was still too early for the county to decide its next course of action regarding the track, which is located at S 1/2 SE 30-45-22-W4M.

During the April 14, 2016 rezoning public hearing Andrew Branco told councillors, “We feel like we’re the black sheep in the community.”

The family acquired the agriculturally zoned land years ago and subsequently developed a motocross track. However, neighbours objected to a variety of issues, including noise.

It was revealed later the track had been in use before the couple applied for development permits and before applying to have the land rezoned. The Brancos applied for a rezoning, which would allow the track to operate for the public, but were denied.

The grounds of the Branco’s application before the Court of Appeal of Alberta were:

1. The respondent erred in law in dismissing the applicants/appellants appeal from a refusal to grant a development permit by misinterpreting the phrase race track in Land Use Bylaw 95/94.

2. The respondent erred in the law in dismissing the applicants/appellants appeal to the board by concluding that the development was being proposed, or that any development permit of any kind is necessary before the applicants/appellants operate or permit private use of recreational vehicles on the applicants/appellants real property.

3. The respondent erred in law by concluding that the pre-existing land use of motorcycle riding did not fall within the meaning of extensive recreational as defined in Bylaw 95/94.

4. The respondent board lost or exceeded its jurisdiction by making no findings of fact relevant to the respondent’s reasons for dismissing the appeal from a refusal to grant a development permit; by not referencing in its reasons whether the respondent considered the statutory provided alternatives to simply revoking or confirming the decision before the respondent; and by deciding on irrelevant grounds.

Read more about the provincial appeal: http://www.pipestoneflyer.ca/news/402517135.html

Read more about the appeal to the SDAB decision here: http://www.pipestoneflyer.ca/news/390344981.html?mobile=true

Read more about the original rezoning application here: http://www.pipestoneflyer.ca/news/376254621.html