Canmore’s Land Use Bylaw, which determines how the town develops into the future, was criticized by the development industry at a public hearing, Tuesday (March 22).
While parts of the bylaw were rolled out to the public last year, members of the industry took issue with significant changes that have been included since then.
Susan Barry immediately took aim at the four ways the Sustainability Screening Report (SSR) process is dealt with in the bylaw, only one of which, she said, is partly appropriate at the present time.
She pointed to sections that determine a development application is incomplete until reports including an SSR have been filed and accepted by the Town.
“These two sections are clearly an attempt to subvert the intent of the recently amended Subdivision and Development Regulations,” Barry said. “Secondly, the noted sections attempt to deny an applicant a right of appeal on a deemed refusal.”
Bow Valley Builders and Developers Association executive director Ron Remple also took issue with the bylaw’s inclusion of SSR wording and that it does not protect the legal rights of land owners.
“The Subdivision and Development Regulation was amended by Order in Council on Nov. 24, 2010 to protect the legal rights of land owners… including the right to apply for permitted uses and the right to appeal decisions,” Remple said. “BOWDA is not completely opposed to the SSR process, however, we believe that the review of the SSR process by the Town-appointed Task Force must be settled first so that a consistent application of that process can be included in the Land Use Bylaw.”
The bylaw also requires SSR reports to be accepted by the Town for applications for a discretionary use.
Remple pointed out some uses previously permitted have been changed to discretionary and some permitted uses are duplicated as discretionary, based on size or number of units.
“This appears to have been done so that an SSR report will be required to be accepted by the Town before a development permit can be considered complete,” he said, adding the industry believes that is in opposition of the intent of the new regulation. “If a use is appropriate for the district, then the use should be permitted regardless of the number of units or the size of the development.
“Furthermore, these provisions effectively devalue appropriately zoned lands, resulting in loss of certainty of use and opens this bylaw to legal challenge for loss of value.”
Barry said the size of a development may be appropriate in some instances in determining if it is permitted or not, but she said in the proposed bylaw the clear rationale for the distinction is so an SSR can be required.
“This use of land use regulation, for it surely is not land use planning, is an attempt to confound the Subdivision and Development Regulation and opens the Town, again, to charges of abuse of power,” she said.
Frank Kernick expressed surprise that lands in his Spring Creek Mountain Village, which has an approved area redevelopment plan, had similar changes to permitted and discretionary uses.
“That does affect the value of my land and I was surprised,” he said. “I ask council to pull that out right away.”
Kernick also drew attention to the fact the SSR process is currently under review by a council-appointed committee and the changes to the bylaw in his opinion prejudges the outcome of that work.
Roof heights and employee housing in industrial districts also came up as criticisms.
Barry said Canmore already has very little industrial/heavy commercial land and what does exist is at times in conflict with adjacent residential uses.
She questioned putting apartments in those industrial areas, which require outdoor amenity space like a balcony, and the statement in the bylaw that existing or potential industrial uses will not unduly interfere with employee housing.
“This is twisted and hallucinatory logic,” she said. “Employing it will rob us of the remaining bits of industrial land.”
Remple pointed to new sections that require maximum building heights that have been added without any consultation with the building community.
Included is a requirement for a “green roof” on low sloped roofs or anything under 6:12 pitch.
“This is not economically feasible and is the reason why the Town did not implement this on the Multiplex,” he said. “If the Town is not going to implement this on its own buildings, then it should not be made a requirement for the rest of the community.”
Kernick said the requirement scared him and is not possible in the current economic climate and market.
Barry was critical of the bylaw as a whole, saying it is not ready to be released. Further, she said, there is no way to compare what is currently in place with what was proposed in the roll outs and what is now before council.
“Lack of pagination, inconsistent section numbering, incorrect section numbering, inconsistent terminology, arbitrary use of terminology and awkward schedule numbering have all created a lengthy and frustrating review process,” she said. “And that is outside the significant philosophical or technical issues related to the bylaw.
“This bylaw is nowhere close to being ready to approve.”
