Canmore’s development industry is concerned about last-minute changes made to the municipality’s environmental impact study policy by council earlier this month.
The Environmental Impact Study Policy (EIS) has been in development for over a year as part of the overall Municipal Development Plan rewrite process.
Planner Tracy Woitenko said the policy is separate from the MDP because it provides more flexibility to amend the policy.
As a policy, it gives more direction than the 1998 MDP to administration, applicants and third party consultants that are hired to review environmental impact studies.
“As a separate policy, we are able to greatly expand the scope and detail about how the terms of reference and environmental impact study are to be prepared and reviewed,” Woitenko said. “We think it is a great step in giving consultants direction as to what should be in an EIS.”
But what was recommended by administration as a policy was changed by Councillor Sean Krausert through a number of motions. Several of the motions changed the policy to require that an EIS have an independent third party review, one proposed amendment sought to direct the consultant reviewing an EIS to recommend to council if a development application should be turned down or denied. There were concerns, however, that council should not delegate its authority and by asking a consultant to recommend rejecting a proposal would do just that.
“I want them to take a look at what is being suggested in a proposal and possibly make other suggestions, and if they think whatever is being suggested as mitigation can or cannot satisfactorily reduce or mitigate environmental impacts,” said Krausert.
A change to the wording, though, resulted in the following being added to the policy: “the third party reviewer will identify and make recommendations on how to reduce, mitigate or avoid negative impacts of the proposal, including raising concerns if the negative impacts cannot be satisfactorily reduced, mitigated or avoided.”
Councillors Ed Russell and Rob Seeley voted against the motion to amend the policy.
Bow Valley Builders and Developers Association President Ron Remple said what is concerning is that the change may have unintended consequences that were not considered because it was made at the last minute without consultation.
Remple questioned whether the change to the policy creates too much latitude to a third party consultant to delay, or deny a reasonable project.
“BOWDA, as an advocacy group for the building and development industry, wants to limit unnecessary hurdles to responsible development,” he said. “The concern and potential unintended consequence is that the third party consultant may have been given too much latitude to delay a sound development proposal.”
The debate around how to evaluate an EIS has been at the council table throughout the MDP process. The challenge, explained Mayor John Borrowman in the past, is that councillors are presented with two scientific reports – one from the applicant and one from the third party reviewer – and tasked with evaluating which one is right from a scientific standpoint.
The desire to avoid that has seen a number of changes to the Municipal Development Plan made throughout the public review process.
A big difference the policy enacts from the current process is that the third party consultant would be hired at the beginning of the process when terms of reference are drafted with the development applicant.
It was also made perfectly clear in the policy that it is the Town of Canmore that pays for the third party review consultant – not the developer.
“The intent is to make it absolutely clear that a third party review is completely independent of the applicant,” said the mayor.
