It has won awards, it has caused the provincial government to alter the Municipal Government Act, it has been debated during elections, the development industry has consistently objected to certain aspects of it and now it will be replaced.
Canmore’s Sustainability Screening Report has a short, but storied, past after being brought into place by then mayor Ron Casey in 2007 as a way for those proposing developments to demonstrate their project had a net benefit to the entire community.
It started as a triple bottom line approach in looking at the economic, environmental and social effects of a project and was transformed in 2014 through the work of administration to create a matrix that calculated the overall benefit into a numerical value.
Bow Valley Builders and Developers Association (BOWDA) has consistently expressed concerns that the process is far too subjective and confusing for the developer, decision making body and the public.
“BOWDA questions the value of the SSR, process,” wrote executive director Ron Remple in an email to the Town last year. “We have asked Town administration to show what benefit has been achieved through the SSR process over the past six years of its use.”
Town of Canmore development planner Tracy Woitenko told council at the beginning of July that administration recommends developing policies within the upcoming rewrite of the municipal development plan (MDP), then subsequent revisions to the land use bylaw (LUB) could replace the SSR policy.
“The last amendments to the sustainability screening report process was in January 2013 and since that time we have received two letters from BOWDA requesting we abolish the process,” Woitenko said.
Over a year ago, council directed administration to work with BOWDA to better understand the issues they had with the SSR policy and process before working on agreeable policies or bylaws to achieve the SSR’s objectives, which at the time was recognized could be included in the MDP.
Woitenko said there are three objectives the municipality wants to achieve through the changes: to acknowledge the Town’s goals that can or have been achieved through the SSR process; to recognize BOWDA’s concerns with the current process, and present a set of options for proceeding forward that best achieves the first two objectives.
Planning is currently working on a new MDP – as the one in place dates back to 1998 – and Woitenko said the outcomes of the SSR process could be integrated into the MDP.
“The Town really does want to achieve good development from the start; (development) is not forever, but it does last a long time and we would like to get it right the first time,” she said.
While council voted in favour of directing administration to develop policies for the new MDP and subsequently the LUB, Mayor John Borrowman said it will be challenging to find wording for the latter to keep elements of the SSR he would like to see included.
“I have confidence in our administration to work with the industry to get us close to a point where our intent with the SSR is met through different policies,” he said. “The SSR was first approved and came along at a time when there was still a lot of development going on that was not designed to meet the needs of a sustainable community.”
Borrowman said originally the SSR was a blunt tool to get builders to meet community needs and had some impact until the MGA amendments were made and the province “shut us down.”
The subsequent matrix he called a “brilliant piece of work,” although he recognized it was still subjective.
“If we can get to where we wanted when we started through the municipal development plan and land use bylaw, I am good with that,” said the mayor.
Councillor Sean Krausert also said he was happy to move in this direction with the SSR process, which in essence tried to turn developers’ minds to sustainability issues in Canmore.
“I think that is the benefit the SSR process has given us, that we are having that active conversation,” Krausert said. “I believe the sustainability screening report process in its current form still has some considerable flaws that are detrimental to the development community and we can achieve the intent of the process through clear policy.”
In particular, he pointed out that the SSR’s subjectivity and uncertainty stands in the way of developers getting financing for projects as a result and the additional time needed for the process can make it more expensive to build.
While the eventual outcome of the direction council gave administration will see the SSR policy eventually rescinded, Coun. Joanna McCallum noted the work being done on Canmore’s statutory planning documents to include objectives of the SSR is not starting from scratch.
“We will have clear policy in place for future development before we rescind the SSR process,” she said. “That allows for careful thought and consideration by council and it speaks to the collaboration to occur between administration and the development industry in forming these policies.”
