M.D. OF BONNYVILLE – A landowner looking to subdivide 17.57 acres of agricultural land has received approval from M.D. of Bonnyville council, despite administration recommending the application be refused because it did not comply with the municipality’s land use bylaw.

Council considered the application during its October 27 regular meeting, ultimately approving the subdivision with conditions after discussing why the landowner needed more acreage than normally permitted.

The property belongs to Dustin Roth and is located along Range Road 460, approximately 800 metres north of Township Road 601A.

The proposed subdivision would separate 17.57 acres from an existing 146.96-acre agricultural property.

Why administration recommended refusal

The issue wasn’t whether the land could be used for agriculture. It was how much land could be subdivided from the quarter section.

Under the M.D.’s Land Use Bylaw No. 1915, a quarter section that has not been fragmented can generally have up to four parcels subdivided, provided their combined area does not exceed 20 acres.

This property had already undergone a 9.98-acre subdivision in 2006.

Adding another 17.57 acres would bring the total previously subdivided and newly proposed acreage to approximately 27.55 acres, exceeding the bylaw’s 20-acre limit.

For that reason, administration recommended refusing the application.

The subdivision report did, however, outline an alternative that would allow council to approve a smaller parcel of up to 10.02 acres while remaining within the bylaw’s overall acreage limit.

Council chose to consider the larger subdivision instead.

Subdivision File 2026-S-014 Location Plan PROPOSED Subdivision of SW-18-60-5-W4M for Dustin Roth

Subdivision File 2026-S-014

Existing livestock infrastructure part of discussion

During council’s discussion, attention turned to an existing underground livestock watering system and the practical challenges of dividing the property.

The additional acreage was discussed in connection with keeping that infrastructure and the surrounding land together.

The subdivision report also identified a provision allowing the subdivision authority some discretion to adjust parcel sizes to accommodate existing or proposed residential development and natural or man-made features.

That provision formed part of an alternative approval option presented to council, despite administration’s recommendation to refuse the application.

The report found that the proposal complied with Alberta’s Municipal Government Act, the applicable subdivision regulations, the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan and the M.D.’s Municipal Development Plan.

Its identified non-compliance was with the municipality’s land use bylaw.

No objections received

Before the application reached council, notices were circulated to adjacent landowners and referral agencies.

Administration reported receiving no concerns about the proposed subdivision.

Several agencies, including Alberta Health Services, Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors, ATCO Electric and the Bonnyville Regional Fire Authority, indicated they had no objections.

M.D. Agricultural Services noted the possibility of low-lying wet areas, while Infrastructure Services identified access requirements for the property.

Approval comes with conditions

Although council supported the larger subdivision, the approval does not mean the landowner can proceed without meeting additional requirements.

The conditions outlined in the subdivision report include providing appropriate access to the new and remaining parcels, dedicating land for road widening, addressing municipal reserve requirements and ensuring existing structures comply with property setbacks.

The landowner must also meet applicable sewage disposal requirements and pay any outstanding property taxes.

The report specifies that required approaches, culverts and crossings must be completed at the owner’s expense and to the M.D.’s satisfaction.

Council exercises discretion

The decision highlights the balance council sometimes faces between enforcing subdivision limits and considering the practical circumstances of agricultural properties.

Administration’s recommendation was based on the proposed acreage exceeding the bylaw’s normal limit.

Council, however, supported the larger parcel after considering the property’s existing livestock infrastructure and the discretion identified in the subdivision report.

The application was approved with conditions, meaning the landowner must still satisfy the municipality’s requirements before the subdivision can be finalized.