The over arching planning document that is intended to guide future development for the town of Canmore will be subject to a second public hearing set for next Wednesday night (June 29).
The Municipal Development Plan is in its fifth version after close to 10 months of consultation and consideration by Canmore council. The first public hearing on the document was held in March, however, because substantive changes have occurred to the planning document since that time, council voted to hold a second one at the end of the month.
Tracey Woitenko, development planner for the municipality, presented the most up-to-date version of the MDP to council this month for second reading.
“Changes to the Municipal Development Plan have been based on what we heard from the public hearing, from council’s workshops and there are also administration’s recommendations for changes,” Woitenko said. “Administration has put forward some alternate suggestions for wording of the MDP to address (council’s) concerns. We believe it has captured council’s intent and can make the MDP stronger.”
Woitenko said the MDP, once approved, provides direction for council, the community and administration and that direction will lead to policies and inform strategic planning processes.
She said the document is very much focused on land use and represents the long-term vision for the entire community.
One of the major issues for elected officials was how the MDP deals with vacant lots in the Cougar Creek subdivision since the 2013 flood.
The first draft of the MDP included a development hold zone for Cougar Creek that reflected the hazard from a potential debris flow down the mountain creek similar to what occurred in 2013.
The way the MDP was originally drafted meant any vacant lot in Cougar Creek would be prohibited from being developed until the hazard or risk was reduced through mitigation. But council provided an exemption to that initial direction to allow vacant lots to be developed as per what is permitted in the land use district already.
Administration, however, recommended the municipality not permit development in an area where there is a known risk to property and life. In its current version, the MDP strips the five vacant lots in Cougar Creek of development potential until mitigation is completed and the risk reduced.
Senior manager of municipal infrastructure Michael Fark told council administration recommends removing that exemption due to liability reasons.
“Here we are with information available to us and we have a legal liability and professional ethical reasons for having a concern about development in an area where we now understand the risk,” Fark said.
There are five vacant lots in Cougar Creek affected by the policy – two of which are directly on the creek and saw the homes on them demolished due to damage caused by the 2013 flood.
Submissions at the public hearing included many who urged council to require an environmental impact statement for all development applications adjacent to a wildlife corridor or habitat patch and to define adjacent as at least 250 metres.
In its current form, the MDP requires an environmental impact statement when there is an application to expand the urban growth boundary, when changes to a conservation area are proposed, when existing development in a wildlife corridor or habitat patch is proposed for expansion or intensification and for new development within or adjacent to wildlife corridors and habitat patches.
New area structure plans, redevelopment plans or amendments to either would require an EIS to be prepared, according to the MDP. However, the section on environmental impact statements gives council the authority to waive the requirement for an amendment to an ASP or ARP. Furthermore, the MDP says an EIS may be required for any development proposal anyway.
The section on wildlife corridors and habitat patches specifically states the Town will refer to the Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group (BCEAG) wildlife corridor and habitat patch guidelines for the Bow Valley to determine adjacency, “but other relevant criteria may be considered as well.
“Not all proposals deemed adjacent will require an EIS – the requirement for an EIS will be evaluated based on the nature and scope of the proposed development, including the type of land use and intensity of the development, as well as the potential for adverse environmental impacts.”
Woitenko said administration believes there may be situations where, based on the nature and scope of an application, an EIS may not be necessary.
As for the definition of adjacency, she said adjacency should not be the final determination of whether an environmental impact statement is required, but rather a consideration.
“There is also the nature and scale of a proposal,” Woitenko said. “Those things together will help determine if an EIS is required. We believe the policy is stronger by removing that definition of adjacency.”
One major change to the MDP related to the requirement of an EIS states the municipality will prepare the terms of reference for an environmental impact statement, select an environmental consultant to prepare it, contract them directly and have them report to the Town.
“The Town will work with the consultant and the applicant to find a balance in mitigations that minimize the identified impact of the proposal,” states the MDP. “All costs associated to a required EIS will be collected from the proponent through a bond or deposit taken at the time of an application fee.”
