An area structure plan (ASP) for the remaining 80 per cent of developable land in Canmore has moved past first reading and will go directly to a public hearing following a decision by Town council at a special meeting, Tuesday (April 30).
Council unanimously voted to proceed with a formal public hearing on May 15 instead of first reading of a new ASP for Three Sisters Mountain Village (TSMV) due to a lack of confidence the plan would actually be approved as presented.
A public hearing is held following first reading of any new bylaw, but since the ASP has, according to both administration and councillors, uncertainty surrounding various issues, the hearing will precede first reading in hopes the applicant will make changes before the matter is brought back to council.
Had first reading of the ASP proceeded and failed to gain a majority of votes from council the entire application process, which has already involved a terms of reference, sustainability screening report and environmental impact statements, would have ended.
“There’s good value in going to a public hearing at this time,” said Mayor John Borrowman following administration’s recommendation. “There is yet an opportunity for the applicant to consider revising the ASP, if that’s their choice.”
As of 2009, the developable lands in question have been in a court-ordered receivership and managed by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) on behalf of the major creditor, HSBC Bank Canada.
“I feel PwC and their team has had an opportunity to understand where there could be some improvement,” the mayor added, regarding comments and suggestions heard during the meeting.
Last week the Town posted the full ASP submitted by the applicant on its website for review by administration, council and members of the public.
In the ASP, the developer laid out its intention for TSMV, which will be conducted in five stages and potentially increase the population of the town by 9,000 people through construction of 2,549 residential units, another 1,000 for resort accommodation and 500 for visitor accommodation.
The plan also noted five per cent, as many as 127, of those residential units will be devoted to perpetually affordable housing (PAH) and that a public trail system with two off-leash dog parks will be created within the development.
As previously reported, the area of land on the eastern side of the property known as Site 9 will be transferred to a conservation society in exchange for development on other parts of TSMV.
For areas identified as Resort Centre I and II and Sites 7 and 8, the applicant has proposed pods containing low, medium and high density units and resort hotel/lodge accommodations as well as various open spaces in between.
At Tuesday night’s meeting, Alaric Fish, the Town’s manager of planning and development, outlined administration’s concern with the ASP and referenced recommendations proposed by the Town’s third party reviewer of the previously submitted environmental impact statement.
The reviewer, Management and Solutions in Environmental Science (MSES), found there is uncertainty surrounding the impacts on the wildlife corridor adjacent to the development and suggested more analysis is conducted prior to any approval.
Wildlife exclusion fencing proposed as the primary mitigation for reducing wildlife-human interaction within the development has been an unproven experiment, MSES concluded.
Fish also referenced a lack of detail surrounding the responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement of wildlife exclusion fencing once it is operational with costs estimated at $1,250 per year.
What would occur if wildlife manages to breach the fencing, which is presumed to be the Province’s responsibility, was noted in administration’s report as well.
Similar to the issue of fencing, MSES found there is uncertainty concerning the future effectiveness of the wildlife corridor and that currently, it is not functional as a multi-species corridor system.
“Because the current functionality of the corridors is uncertain, MSES conclude there is insufficient information to evaluate the potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed development,” the report stated.
The issue of undermining was brought up during the meeting and according to the applicant’s ASP, the development is governed by provincial regulation, which will ensure “development on or in close proximity to undermined areas utilizes applicable guidelines and mitigation standards per current reports and findings.”
At an open house in March, a geotechnical engineer for Golder Associates, the applicant’s environmental consultant, said the proposed development was “absolutely safe” despite the undermining present in the Resort Centre II area.
Following the manager’s presentation, members of council reiterated their concerns and support for going straight to the public hearing stage before first reading.
“I don’t believe the ASP is quite ready for first reading,” said Councillor Jim Ridley. “There are many concerns from the public that have not been addressed in the draft as presented thus far.”
Coun. Sean Krausert praised some of the positive aspects of the plan such as the amount of PAH units and the trail system that “very much fit with the mountain town lifestyle.”
“This whole effort is positive,” he said. “It’s an effort to get land back on the market and into the hands of people who will use it. It represents economic benefits and creates social well being.”
With that said, Krausert also pointed to a list of concerns, such as the wildlife exclusion fence fitting with the character of the community and the detail from the Province regarding it’s opinion of the proposal.
“We absolutely have to have word from the Province before we can pass something that involves them,” he added. “I strongly encourage (the applicant) to take the opportunity before it comes back to council to listen to concerns and make revisions that address concerns in a way they would like them written.”
Describing the proposal as a “big execution risk,” Coun. Hans Helder cited the history of Three Sisters and development in the Town itself as always involving controversy in announcing his support for a public hearing prior to first reading.
“The community needs an opportunity to address this issue themselves,” Helder said while suggesting a locally-led committee to deal with undermining issues, instead of strictly provincial, should be created.
Coun. Vi Sandford indicated she would also like to see more public input and information surrounding who will pay for the various wildlife mitigation recommendations.
“I don’t think we have made a mistake yet and I don’t want to make a mistake,” added Coun. Joanna McCallum who said the public hearing will be an opportunity for residents to provide comments and for the applicant to “listen very carefully about what they’re saying.”
After the decision, PwC Vice-President Earl Williams indicated the ASP had been rewritten eight times since its inception and the applicant will continue to work with administration.
“It’s a very important issue for Canmore,” he said. “This gives us an opportunity to take that input, think about it, distill it, have further dialogue with administration and see how we can develop an ASP that’s going for work for everybody.”
The public hearing will take place at the Radisson Hotel in Canmore on May 15 at 5 p.m.
