Editor: Recently, the people of Canmore have not been very successful in having our voices heard by council, but we need to try again at the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) public hearing on March 22, at 6 p.m.
Some wording has changed since the last draft, but the intent to densify our existing neighbourhoods in order to provide below market affordable housing has not changed.
When I moved to Canmore 16 years ago, it was clearly understood from our existing MDP that further development would occur primarily on Three Sisters lands. In addition, we have added Spring Creek and Silvertip as areas under development as well. In spite of those designated growth areas, existing neighbourhoods are to be densified as was recently approved in the built out Peaks of Grassi.
The draft MDP states “Infill means development of vacant land or mostly vacant land within built-up areas of existing neighbourhoods, where infrastructure is readily available”.
The recently rezoned Peaks urban reserve in Quarry Lake’s backyard was described as vacant land in administration’s report to council. Though the vacant land is indeed not vacant land, but rather green space with beautiful forest and bedrock outcroppings, it has been conveniently interpreted as such by the Town. A more clear definition of vacant land specifies a lot that is and always was developable or may have housed a previous building, not an area that was designated as green space.
The goal of infill in most communities is to revitalize blighted or very old areas. Canmore’s TeePee Town is a typical example of infill revitalization within our community.
Look around your neighbourhood. How many vacant areas do you see ready for infill? Most of the vacant sites within our built-up neighbourhoods are natural forested areas or park land. There are several provisions in the MDP that will make many Canmore neighbourhoods potentially densified like many suburbs in Calgary or Edmonton.
As described in the draft MDP, Density bonuses 5.2.2, Variance Powers 5.2.4, Municipal Reserve Reductions 5.2.5, the list goes on … Section 5.2.1 has a 15 per cent target for non-market affordable housing concurrently with market growth. How can this be achieved but by giving up or reducing the green municipal reserve lands (5.2.5)?
In April, 2014, an inventory of municipally owned land in the municipal evaluation map for potential development for affordable housing units was presented to council. This included Larch Avenue municipal reserve (Larch Park’s forested area, not the area where the old red barn/day care was), a section of Millenium Park, Veteran’s Park, the boat launch and many other areas of green natural land within the “growth boundary.” Canmore Community Housing Corporation (CCHC) in 2016 has plans to review some of the green lands in this municipal land evaluation map for potential future development of below market affordable housing (July 3, 2015 CCHC special meeting).
Would you have chosen to live where you do if you had known this? Moreover, do you want to remain in a community that is forced to densify? Which green space will be infilled next? It may be yours.
You can download the draft MDP version two, final and with tracked changes at http://www.canmore.ca/residents/mdp. The 100 pages is a must read if you care about Canmore’s future.
Lynn Rock,
Canmore
