Editor:
A couple of Canmore issues ...
First: I was at the transit open house and reviewed the two routes and am delighted to see this progressing. No doubt there will be a need for tweaking as ridership and feedback are evaluated after real-time trials. Also, no doubt transit stops will be an issue – they probably will be for me – but I’m looking forward to the startup – it can’t begin early enough.
Second: Peaks of Grassi is, as has been said, déjŕ vu all over again. However, only one person it seems (Pierre Lambert) has bothered to look at the Land Use Bylaw to see what the phrase urban reserve means; i.e., reserved for future urban use – as opposed to wildlife/wild land reserve, meaning reserved for future wildlife/land use.
And having looked up the definitions and allowed uses in the Land Use Bylaw, Mr. Lambert, in his argument, has skipped right over the intent part that says to “protect land that is potentially suited ... for urban uses ...”
“Potentially” suited means it looks like it would be a good fit, adjacent as it is to other urban uses; however, it has not yet been proven suitable because there needs to be additional evaluation and the bylaw stresses physical and geotechnical evaluations, primarily. The limited permitted and allowed uses in Urban Reserve are limited so that the “urban” potential is not compromised until those evaluations have been done.
I have no doubt that both the administration and council will, or already have, put the developers through rigorous hoops to make sure the lands are suitable for urban use. This parcel, like other urban reserves, was never destined to be permanent green space – there are other land use designations for that kind of intended land use protection.
I agree with Mr. Lambert that Canmore residents need to be able to trust the Land Use Bylaw (which by the way, is legally subject to change). In this case, a better understanding of what “reserve” means in the context of “urban” and “land use” through more in depth questioning of, or interviews with, Town administration might have been of benefit to that understanding before he bought his property.
I trust that council will do its due diligence and, if the lands are deemed suitable, to approve this development for the benefit of those who need to live in Canmore to help support its economy and services, unlike others (myself included 20 years ago) who came for the views and the recreation opportunities.
Susan Kay Barry,
Canmore
