Town Council has heard another round of pleas from concerned Canmore residents anxious for Three Sisters developers to commit to mapping wildlife corridors on their land.
To a packed public hearing on a rainy Tuesday evening (June 18), Councillors listened to speakers on both sides of a debate over a bylaw that would allow Three Sisters to begin construction on 20 high-end homes in exchange for what developers said is a long-term and thoughtful approach committing it to meeting the concerns of the community.
The public hearing was receiving public input on a new proposed bylaw that would redraw the boundaries around two of Three Sisters’ key development areas. Under Bylaw 18Z (2002), Three Sister would agree to develop a statutory Area Structure Plan — which Town planner Steve de Keijzer said would be more forceful than the Comprehensive Scheme currently required — for Sites 1 and 3 in exchange for Council approving a development of 20 luxury homes on an 80-hectare area of Site 1 known as Site 1A.
Council heard 11 people speak in favour of and around 16 people speak against the bylaw.
John Plastiras, vice president of Stantec Consulting, speaking for Three Sisters and United Inc., the developers working with Three Sisters on the project, said Site 1A is a logical place to build in the short-term because it is adjacent to the Three Sisters parkway and is easily serviceable. He also said it is set back from the Bow River by 60 metres and is nowhere near any wildlife corridors, making it a relatively clean process.
“From a planning point of view, this site is a well defined planning unit onto itself,” he said.
Plastiras said if Council approved 35 “estate-type houses” on the site developers would be able to account for more diverse housing in the overall project.
“The Town would have a greater control over future development” because of the combined Sites 1 and 3 Area Structure Plan, he said.
Finally, Plastiras said the proposed bylaw is an extension of the lengthy and voluntary public consultation process United undertook over the winter to help determine what Site 1 would look like. That process, like Tuesday’s hearing, attempted to look at the project from a variety of perspectives, but ended up being almost exclusively about wildlife corridors.
Architect Bill Marshall called this week’s public hearing a “turning point in the process” and said the kind of housing proposed for Site 1A was well-suited to the terrain.
“I think it’s a good idea to work with Three Sisters and give them this opportunity,” local businessman Rob Seeley said.
While many people said allowing Three Sisters to build on Site 1A would be good for the local economy (specifically the building industry), there were more speakers concerned about the bylaw who asked Council to make firmly defined and functional wildlife corridors the bargaining tool the Town uses when giving Three Sisters any concessions.
With just over a decade having passed since this process began in earnest with the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) hearings into Three Sisters development, many Canmore residents who spoke out against the bylaw expressed frustration that their chief concern still hasn’t been fully addressed, even though the NRCB ruling stated that functional corridors must be provided in any Three Sisters development.
“Wildlife corridors are still the crux of the issue. Council has to face it and resolve it,” said resident Eileen Patterson.
“We cannot approve something unless we have wildlife corridors that work,” said Kate Scott.
Environmentalists stressed their frustration that a series of Three Sisters decisions have come before Council and no firm wildlife corridors have been committed to.
“Doing the proper planning and taking the time to adopt a new holistic and long-term and successful approach is important,” said Peter Duck, president of the Bow Valley Naturalists.
Allison Penny-McGoey said she likens the bylaw to giving children dessert without knowing if they’ll stick around to eat their first course.
Three Sisters president Bill Heidt, however, said after the hearing that people should refrain from jumping to conclusions about the developer’s plans for the land and keep in mind that they plan to put wildlife corridors at the top of the list when, and if, the Site 1 and 3 Area Structure Plans get decided.
“We all want the same thing and that’s functional corridors,” he said.
Town planner Steve de Kiejzer said administration will prepare notes on the public hearing to present to Council at an up-coming meeting at which point Councillors can make a motion in response to the bylaw.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.