Editor:
A letter to Mayor Borrowman and Councillors Helder, Krausert, McCallum, Miskow, Ridley and Sandford.
I am particularly concerned about the lack of recognition in the proposed framework agreement between the Town and PwC (the receiver for Three Sisters) of the previously established policies regarding the Three Sisters Mountain Village lands.
Most of these policies were established through open and democratic processes involving substantial input from citizens of Canmore. It seems to me that we have every right to expect that these policies and procedures will be adhered to, or, at the very least, that their modification will be subject to a process which gives residents adequate time and information to provide input to members of the Town administration and council.
This would suggest a clause in the framework agreement specifying that the rewritten MDP, bylaws and agreements under the framework will maintain their conservation clauses (this, of course, as now, would not prevent the developer from applying for changes in these documents, but it would ensure that the hard work of Canmore citizens and previous councils is not lost).
I am particularly concerned about two matters in the proposed framework. First, there is no recognition of the long-standing Golder requirements with regard to wildlife corridor functionality in the resort area. As you will recall, TSMV was given permission to proceed with the Cairns development in return for accepting the Golder process, jointly undertaken with the Town and the province. The Golder 2002 recommendations included setback and zoning provisions in the resort area that were regarded as necessary for the wildlife corridor to work.
Moreover, the Golder requirements were formally accepted in other Town documents such as the terms of reference for area structure plans elsewhere on the TSMV land. Not only does the proposed framework seem to entirely ignore these previous commitments by TSMV, the Town and the province to the Golder process, it appears to explicitly state that the receiver will proceed with a proposal with no setbacks in the resort area.
Surely this is completely unacceptable to the Town; I know it is to the many citizens who made presentations to council in 2002 accepting the Cairns approval in return for TSMV’s willingness to provide a functional corridor in the resort area.
At the very least, the framework should include a clause to the effect that any development in the resort area must be consistent with the spirit of the requirements of the 2002 Golder Report.
Second, the Town has always been careful in ensuring that major projects which are adjacent to wildlife corridors or habitat patches are subject to independent expert assessments. Many citizens have expressed support for this in public hearings and representations to council members on documents such as the MDP, the proposed CSP and, as recently as 2009, the terms of reference for the TSMV ASP.
Despite this, the proposed terms for the EIS on the TSMV property specify a degree of co-operation between the receiver’s environmental consultant and the Town’s which casts doubt on the absolute independence of the Town’s environmental consultant. The terms of reference must make clear that the Town’s independent representative is free to disagree with the receiver’s at any time during the ‘consultation’ process, as well as in the final assessment provided to the Town.
I offer these comments in a personal capacity, not as a member of BowCORD.
Alan MacFadyen,
Canmore
