They are damned if they do, and they are damned if they don’t.
That’s the situation currently facing Canmore’s locally elected officials when it comes to a single lot on Wilson Way in the Peaks of Grassi subdivision.
The lot is supposed to be municipal reserve owned by the municipality, having been set out in the subdivision for Peaks of Grassi as such in the late ’90s.
However, it is owned now by a private individual who purchased it for $50,000 in 2013 and has submitted a development permit to build a home, sending administration at town hall scrambling to find out how and why.
That owner is now asking for over $300,000 to sell it back to the municipality – a price tag that council will have to decide is worth spending public dollars on to fix the situation.
General manager of municipal infrastructure Michael Fark told council recently administration acknowledges there were mistakes and missed opportunities on the part of administration when it comes to the management of this particular parcel.
“We want to take responsibility for that,” he said.
The initial error occurred when the subdivision was registered at land titles with the incorrect zoning, but the error was realized in 2007 when council by motion directed administration to fix the mistake.
However, Three Sisters Mountain Village, which owned the parcel at that time, went into receivership and Fark explained new owners purchased the development company free and clear of prior obligations – including turning over the lot to the municipality as municipal reserve.
TSMV came out of receivership in June 2013 and when asked if the Town of Canmore was given a chance to purchase the lot, Fark said the municipality has “no record of a formal offer. However, we do have indications that informal discussions were held.”
From a policy point of view, Fark told council administration sees no reason to change the status of the lot – or in other words buy it from the current owner and redesignate it as municipal reserve. He said the subdivision already exceeds the municipal reserve dedication requirements set out in the Municipal Government Act, the lot “does not meet a community recreational need” and the cost to recover it is high.
“There may be reasons council may have for trying to recover the lot legitimately,” he added. “What we are trying to do now is weigh the dissatisfaction and feeling of unfairness with the cost and justification of recovering the lot. That is not an easy thing to do.”
After communicating with the lot’s owner, who has submitted a development permit application to build a single detached dwelling on it, a report to council on Tuesday (May 3) set out the purchase price as $304,450. The issue was postponed to a future council meeting for elected officials to decide what to do.
The discussion at the council table in April, however, showed they are not all on the same page when it comes to buying back the lot.
Councillo Sean Krausert said it is reasonable for residents of Canmore and the neighbourhood in particular, to expect that when land use for a parcel is changed there is going to be a public process that is followed, and an opportunity to participate.
Krausert said council was not part of any decision to designate the land as residential and errors should not be allowed to vacate decisions of council.
“By allowing the error to carry the day, it essentially negates the decision of council,” he said, adding “the public has a right to expect proper process is followed as set out in the MGA.”
Mayor John Borrowman agreed with the intent put forward by Krausert, but said from a community-wide perspective he cannot support spending taxpayer dollars on this lot.
“This council is the steward of the tax dollars and revenues we collect and we collect them based on a proposed use,” he said.
“It is not our money. I feel badly, but I have to raise myself 20,000 feet above the valley and look at what is best for the entire community and I don’t think spending significant amounts of money to purchase this lot to designate it as municipal reserve, recognizing that zoning could be reversed by a future council, is the best use of tax dollars.”
