CANMORE – Tensions were high at Canmore council on Tuesday (May 7) after council voted 4-3 to pass third reading of a contentious rezoning bylaw in the Peaks of Grassi neighourhood.
It is the third time the three parcels of land along Lawrence Grassi Ridge were the subject of a rezoning bylaw in front of council, and the second time it was approved. Those who opposed the development to begin with, however, successfully appealed the prior approval, at the Court of Queen’s Bench.
“Councillors were not elected to make easy decisions but here we are to make a difficult decision on behalf of our community and this has been difficult for four or five years and hasn’t been very fun,” Canmore Mayor John Borrowman said before announcing his support for the third reading.
Owners of the vacant parcels of land applied to rezone them from Urban Reserve (UR) to Direct Control (DC), Public Use District (PD) and Residential Single Family Detached plus District (R1B). The rezoning paves the way for a development permit application to develop infill residential housing in the established neighbourhood.
The original application in January was to allow for development of approximately 27 residential units with up to 13 accessory dwelling units on 1.83 acres of land, but changes were made at second reading. In the end, 12 units plus up to eight suites with 10 PAH units and 68 per cent of municipal reserve dedication were approved and one of the three parcels with a rock outcrop was removed from the direct control district.
“You’re making a huge mistake,” one upset resident yelled several times after the motion was approved. “I’m so disappointed.”
Several other residents chanted, “shame, shame, shame” as they left the council chambers.
The third reading was approved in a close vote with Borrowman and Councillors Esmé Comfort, Rob Seeley and Joanna McCallum voting in favour, while Councillors Vi Sandford, Jeff Hilstad and Karen Marra were opposed.
“I am happy for our neighbours who will benefit from the rock outcrop remaining undeveloped – it should have never been included as it is simply not suitable for development,” Mark Gurman, Peaks of Grassi resident said while also noting he is “pleased” for the 10 families who will be able to acquire perpetually affordable housing units but “disappointed” with the decision to return four units to the developers.
“We are extremely disappointed and concerned by the reckless decision to allow these PAH units to be built in an identified flood zone without any requirement of off-site flood mitigation as recommended by every expert report provided and without adequate exits in the event of fire,” Gruman wrote in an email to the Outlook. “This will leave all the west end of Lawrence Grassi Ridge at risk and the taxpayers of Canmore solely responsible for any damage when flooding occurs to the homes Council has approved.”
NUMEROUS CONCERNS
After the first reading at the beginning of the year, residents were invited to have their voices heard at a public hearing on Jan. 29 where for more than three hours, 32 residents stood up to express their concerns about the development’s impact on wildlife, flood risk, traffic safety and the Town’s 1998 settlement agreement, a non-binding document that laid out rules to cap development in the subdivision.
Administration told council they had been previously informed the existing and secondary emergency access/egress roads were deemed “sufficient” quoting the City of Calgary Fire Department Access Standards that state residential projects of 100 houses require only one entrance, and anything between 101 to 600 households require two public accesses. The current fire chief also noted in the report the “incremental change” of the application does not result in a “material change to the sufficiency of the two access/egress points.”
The flood concern was also addressed in the report with administration noting private insurance companies are beginning to offer overland flooding insurance and that the Town’s Steep Creek Mitigation program is one of the “most comprehensive in Alberta.”
As well, the Town would be responsible for the construction of any future off-site steep creek hazard, noting off-site mitigation is not a requirement at the rezoning stage and the subdivision and development process will ensure that local on-site mitigation is “employed for new development.”
Canmore’s general manager of infrastructure Michael Fark said the “science is being done by some of the world’s leading experts.”
Fark said the additional units in the neighbouhood does not “materially change the impact” with wildlife.
“As a closing comment, it was absolutely clear there is a large community opposition for any development on these lands. The position of administration is to address technical concerns which we feel we addressed ... what remains for conflict is the political,” Fark said.
‘EXTENSIVE HISTORY’
In the report, administration noted the “extensive history” of the three parcels of land due to previous approvals including the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) decision for Three Sisters, a municipal Government board order and the settlement agreement.
A similar application was approved by council in 2016, but was overturned by Justice Gates last July due to the lack of a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement and an independent third party review.
After a legal decision last year the Town officials said they aimed to “learn from the decision” and “use that to guide a process for a new application if a new applicant comes forward.”
During the discussion on Tuesday, council weighed the pros and cons of development on the land, with some voicing their support for the additional affordable housing units, bringing more families to the valley and noting the settlement agreement needs to be applied to today’s realities. Those opposed pointed to the overwhelming opposition in the community and residents concerns, while also noting the piece of land is a “gem” to be “protected.”
“It’s great to see that Town Council supported our project,” said one of the three owners of the land Pierre Doyon. “Councillors recognized that it will provide substantial community benefits.
“We want to say thank you to the many people who have expressed their support privately and publicly for our project over that last five years.
“We sincerely hope that those who expressed opposing views will join us in welcoming new families as neighbours.”
