MD landowners are fighting a stop order against the berm they constructed on their property for flood mitigation. Sharon and Brian McCaughan, who live near Aldersyde on 434 Avenue, along the Highwood River, faced the MD of Foothills Development Appeal Board on Nov. 6 to dispute two stop orders against a dike they built to protect their property and the business they run from the land. “If the berm has to come down, number one it’s a huge expense to us, and if we don’t do it then they’ll do it and charge it back, which would be 10 times as expensive,” said Sharon McCaughan. She said their property floods to some degree every year or two. The berm was first built in 2005 following a major flood event, and they raised it in 2013 after they saw second-storey flooding that wiped out most of their records and cost them more than $500,000. “We are getting hit worse and worse every time,” said McCaughan. The berm, and its 2013 upgrade, were built without the proper development permits from the MD. McCaughan said if the Highwood River was to flood at the same rate as in 2013, there would be a minimum of 16 feet of water on her property. In 2013 water levels reached 13 feet deep on the land, she said. “Even if the river raises to just a full amount, now it’s going to be three feet higher because of what they’ve done in High River,” said McCaughan. “So I’m going to be flooding even when the river is rising normally.” Part of the risk for the McCaughans lies in the fact they didn’t take a government buy-out in 2013. It means there won’t be any assistance for them in the event of future flooding, she said. Currently the McCaughans are working on an expropriation claim against the provincial government and the Town of High River, claiming the flood mitigation work done upstream in High River has effectively taken control of the McCaughan property out of their hands. She said the best-case scenario now is for the MD of Foothills to allow them to keep the berm in place until the statement of claim for the expropriation has been handled. “Best case is the appeal board accepts us to have a temporary development permit for the dike so it can remain temporarily there, which will give us time to deal with the expropriating process,” said McCaughan. However, she said she’s also worried about their business, which the MD of Foothills is saying doesn’t have proper permits to operate on the property. Because flooding destroyed their records and the MD’s, she said there is only partial proof of their business being approved as a major home-based business, including storage of heavy equipment, parts and supplies on an undeveloped road allowance. During the hearing, MD development officer Logan Cox said stop orders were issued on Aug. 13 for contraventions to the land use bylaw with commercial operations without an approved development permit, storage on municipal property without authorization and alterations to municipal property without authorization. The McCaughans received council approval in 2002 to operate the business at the time, which was A-Men Siding and Roofing, he said. “This application was deemed as major home-based business application and the site-specific amendment is restricted to the business that was applied for at that time,” said Cox. The current business, Treadstone Equipment Ltd., was not part of that application approval, he said. Because it was not the company approved for the site-specific amendment its operations are non-compliant with the land use bylaw, he said. “Additionally, Treadstone Equipment Ltd. has no record of obtaining a business licence with the municipality,” said Cox. In addition, he said the business equipment is being stored on MD road allowances without written permission from council, and part of the berm in question was built through an undeveloped MD road allowance on 434 Avenue E., he said. He asked the appeal board to uphold all aspects of the stop orders, which would require the McCaughans to remove the entire berm and remediate the land back to its natural state. It would also mean ceasing business activities on the property and removing all storage from municipal land, he said. The MD Development Appeal Board will make its decision within the next week. It is not the first time the McCaughans and MD have butted heads. There were extensive negotiations when the couple’s now-defunct dirt-car racing track was under construction in the 2000s near the McCaughans’ property.
