Two separate and distinct affordable housing project proposals moved further toward development approvals this week when Canmore council voted to approve multiple bylaws that will rezone two pieces of Town-owned land for the community focused initiatives.
The Old Daycare Lands/Larch Park and the Moustache Lands/Palliser Lands – the two proposed direct control districts – have caused concern in the community about the appropriateness of using municipal land for each project.
In both cases, the Town of Canmore has made the rezoning application for its own property – for the Palliser Trail property, the Town applied to rezone the land as part of a process it has undertaken to solicit purpose-built rental or employee housing in the community by joining efforts with a private sector partner through a request for proposal process.
Council voted unanimously to approve the bylaws in relation to that site and moved on in the meeting to considering proposals put forward by two private sector companies; voting in favour of accepting an offer from Northview Real Estate Investment Trust.
General manager of municipal infrastructure Michael Fark told council a potential private sector project that was being considered is no longer going forward. The proposal for purpose-built rentals was being considered by a local developer for a different site, and council postponed approval of the bylaws for the Palliser site in order to gather more information.
“The developer has declined to move forward with that proposal,” Fark said.
As for the need for council to address the issue of affordability and housing in the community, he pointed to the 2011 Canmore Housing Action Plan document that sets out a need, a number of research studies and community engagement that has reinforced that council’s strategic priority is worthy of municipal government action.
“We have clearly identified the availability of affordable housing as the number one concern of residents and small business owners that want to maintain and recruit staff,” Fark said. “Certainly, all indications are there is no lack of demand for housing.”
On the former site of the community daycare, the application for rezoning came after council already voted in favour of using the municipal reserve land for residential affordable housing purposes. The Municipal Government Act requires a vote of council and a public hearing to dispose of municipal reserve before rezoning can occur.
The proposal to build housing is coming from the Town-owned Canmore Community Housing Corporation, which is undergoing its own process to partner with a builder to develop its model of Perpetually Affordable Housing.
The rezoning application passed, but it was one vote shy of being unanimous, with Councillor Ed Russell choosing to oppose the bylaw. Russell said he struggled with the decision, because he originally supported the project and using the location at 11 Avenue and 17 Street to address the affordable housing need in the community.
But the price was too high to pay for Russell, who lamented the loss of a large percentage of the trees that currently occupy the site.
“I don’t want to see the trees go, that is what I have a problem with,” said Russell, noting at this time in the decision making process he doesn’t even know how many, or where, the trees would be removed to accommodate development.
“I just have this horrific vision of ‘let’s knock it all down and sell it for lumber.’ We are going to pack and stack these potentially three-storey townhomes and make it bigger and weirder to allow a few trees in between.
“For that reason, I do not intend to vote in favour of this and regretfully that is in contradiction of my position previously.”
The site design and what form housing will take on the site is still unknown, but the direct control district council approved sets things like land use, building heights and setbacks.
Coun. Sean Krausert successfully amended those parameters in a way that he felt would allow for creative and more flexible approaches to development that would allow for more of the trees to remain, potentially.
Even with those changes, several well-argued points in favour of the bylaw by fellow councillors and Mayor John Borrowman, and the fact that council would be responsible for approving whatever is proposed for that location, Russell was unmoved.
“When a proposal comes forward, council is the development authority and if it does not meet your expectations that is a good opportunity to defeat it and voice that concern. This right now is simply the land use,” said the mayor. “It does not mean that everything that could possibly be built will be, but allows for creative design to meet the intent of the number of units by taking as little space as possible.”
Typically when bylaws for development are applied for, private developers make them. For the municipality to apply to itself for development approvals has been fertile ground for confusion in the community around the process and what is appropriate.
At the beginning of the council meeting, prompted by a letter circulating in the community that contained multiple accusations aimed at council, individual councillors, CCHC, its board members and businesses in the community – the issue was addressed.
Chief Administrative Officer Lisa de Soto spoke to the definition of a pecuniary conflict of interest and that after a review of the situation with legal council it was found that no members of council have a pecuniary conflict with respect to the bylaw to rezone the old daycare lands.
“Administration has done its due diligence and we have consulted the relevant legislation and have sought advice from legal counsel on the allegations of conflict of interest,” de Soto said. “There is no conflict of interest for any council member on this issue.”
A key separation in that particular project is that CCHC is the governing body working with developers on a request for proposal process to find a development scenario that meets the needs of the community. The only decision council was making was in relation to land use, not awarding of a contract.
Krausert was not impressed by allegations floating around in the community, especially given that there is a legal definition for conflict of interest in relation to council members that clearly sets out what constitutes a conflict.
“I think it is highly inappropriate for people to be suggesting conflict of interest because in their opinion, conflict of interest is a matter of fact,” he said. “I do suggest that unless the actual law has been breached, one should not be saying it is a conflict of interest because they believe it.”
Given the level of debate in the community over each parcel of land and whether it should be used for affordable housing, Fark told council administration is preparing a review on all lands owned by the municipality, or may be acquired, for that purpose.
“The short summary is that there are only a small number of parcels that have the critical mass for development to take place and of those parcels only two are currently controlled by the Town,” he said.
Those two parcels of land are the former site of the daycare lands and the property Canmore received as a land exchange with the province related to the additional seniors housing currently under construction at the Bow River Seniors Lodge.
