CANMORE - A controversial development project in the Peaks of Grassi neighbourhood may no longer be financially viable after council approved a last minute amendment that threatens the entire project.
Prior to unanimously approving second reading of the bylaw, which included several changes to try and satisfy community concerns, Coun. Rob Seeley introduced an amendment to keep one of the parcels of land (site three) undeveloped.
Council voted 5-2 in favour of the amendment and in doing so put the entire project at risk. Mayor John Borrowman and Coun. Karen Marra voted against the amendment.
“Unfortunately council’s decision to amend the application to completely eliminate four single family lots has jeopardized the project,” wrote Pierre Doyon, one of three proponents of the project.
“As a result, 14 town home perpetual affordable housing units and eight duplexes with suites are at risk of not being built.”
It’s the third time the proponents of the project have applied to have four acres of land along Lawrence Grassi Ridge rezoned from urban reserve to a direct control district.
In January, council approved first reading of a bylaw that would have allowed the developers to build 27 residential units and up to 13 secondary suites on three parcels of land, including seven perpetual affordable housing units.
Following a public hearing in late January, which included strong opposition from the community, council postponed second reading to give itself more time to consider the public’s concerns.
The majority of those concerns focused on the development’s impact on wildlife, flood risk, traffic safety and the Town’s 1998 settlement agreement, a non-binding agreement that was supposed to cap development in the subdivision.
While council considered the community’s concerns, the proponents amended their proposal and brought it back to council for second reading on Tuesday (March 19).
The amended proposal included reducing the number of single-family dwelling units built on site three from five houses to four houses and increased the setbacks to address privacy issues and traffic safety concerns.
The new proposal also included an offer from Canmore Community Housing Corporation to purchase site one for $115,600 to build 14 perpetual affordable housing units, thereby increasing the community benefit of the project.
Prior to the amendment introduced by Coun. Seeley, the mayor acknowledged the concerns expressed by the community, but voiced his support for the project as it was first presented.
“When communities are divided in a way that these sorts of applications or developments occur it’s tough on everybody, but with this new application I was determined to put everything that happened behind and reconsider this as a new application,” said Borrowman.
He said the crux of the issue was deciding whether the perpetual affordable housing units included in the proposal had a greater benefit to the community then the negative impact the development would have on residents in the neighbourhood.
“I’ve heard the voices and I understand the concerns,” said Borrowman.
“From a planning perspective it seems to me that given the reports that we’ve had from a number of expert consultants in regards to flood risk and wildlife concerns, the environmental impact statement and third party review, there’s nothing in those reports that would not suggest that it’s reasonable development.”
Under the Municipal Government Act he said council has an obligation to consider the interests of members of the community who oppose the development, the interest of the Town to address affordable housing needs and the rights of the landowners making the application.
After weighing everything he said he believed the community benefit created by the perpetual affordable housing units would supersede the negative impacts caused by the development.
“The fabric of our community is torn, its been tearing for years and some in the community don’t agree with me on that, but that’s my belief. We can’t have a full, balanced community when housing is about the most expensive housing in the country.”
Mark Gruman, who launched a successful legal challenge against a similar proposal in 2016, welcomed council’s decision to keep site three zoned as urban reserve.
“While not ideal, a final resolution by which Canmore Community Housing Corporation acquires parcel one for perpetual affordable housing, the developers build on parcel two, likely to make millions for their $325,000 investment, while parcel three remains undeveloped, would seem to be a balance of all interests and I encourage council to stand firm,” wrote Gruman.
Council will consider third reading of the amended proposal on May 7.
