Archive for

Western Wheel: Councillors oppose Holmes development

By Don Patterson
Staff Reporter

Okotoks town council stood up in opposition to the Mike Holmes-led Wind Walk development on Monday evening.
Councillors spoke out against the proposal at a special meeting held to discuss concerns over the impacts it could have on the town’s water supply, its roads and parks.
“My main concern all along has been that large a growth there of approximately 1,100 people right next to the border just creates all kinds of issues,” said Mayor Bill McAlpine.
The plan for the area includes residential housing, a commercial development and park spaces. More than 400 housing units and 80,000 square feet of retail space are proposed for the area.
The MD will be holding a public hearing for the proposal Thursday at 1:30 p.m. in High River at the Highwood Memorial Centre.
The Town of Okotoks contends the development should not be permitted under the intermunicipal development plan (IDP) between the Town and the MD. The IDP calls for low-density country residential development in rural areas around Okotoks.
At the top of McAlpine’s list of concerns is water. He said if the wells on the site do not provide enough water, the Town would end up having to supply the development.
McAlpine also said it will place significant pressures on roads and other amenities in the community, such as schools and recreation facilities.
The Town is also concerned about runoff from the community ending up in the town’s sewer system.
If push comes to shove, McAlpine said the matter could end up in front of the municipal governance board, but he would rather see the Town and MD go to mediation first.
Coun. Stephen Clark said the plans don’t take into account the cumulative effects it will have on water and traffic in Okotoks.
He is also concerned about safety for pedestrians crossing Highway 7 from the development in to town.
Clark said it would be difficult to build a pedestrian overpass over the highway in the area.
“Look at the grade there. You’re looking at the roof of Walmart from that highway. To do a pedestrian crossing would have to be quite high,” he said.
Clark said he wouldn’t be opposed to the MD approving a low-density development in the area.
“There needs to be a transition from urban to rural. We can give that to the MD, but it’s low density. It’s not 1,100 people going to our library, it’s not 1,100 people going to our recreation centre,” he said.
As for the development’s celebrity backer, Clark said Holmes doesn’t fully grasp the unique challenges facing the development or the position it would put the Town in.
“Certainly Mike Holmes is using his celebrity and certainly Okotoks has an international reputation as being a sustainable community. What Mike Holmes is in essence asking us to do is throw out the very thing that made us successful,” he said.

Response to Enrique Raw’s blog: Rocky View’s role needs clarification

Enrique Massot, a former reporter for the Rocky View Weekly newspaper has posted a blog entry on http://www.canadianguerilla.com relating to the current situation in the MD of Rocky View (http://canadianguerilla.com/ER/Entries/2009/9/4_Commentary_Rocky_Views_role_needs_clarification.html). The following is my comment/response to Enrique, who was always a very thoughtful and thorough reporter when covering citizen’s complaints about land use and development in the MD of Rocky View.

Hello Enrique,

I’d like to challenge you on a couple of points in your blog. You say the CRP is a “flexible regional plan” and that it gives the “option to create urban nodes.” You suggest that “A new Rocky View comfortable in its rural role would have a different mission from that of urban municipalities, and could form a new relationship with the other CRP members, reducing frictions and rivalry.” You also mention the high cost to MD taxpayers of providing infrastructure for dense urban developments and suggest leaving this up to existing cities, which seems to suggest that the cities will either cover that cost themselves and/or keep it within their boundaries. More on this near the end of my note…

First, the Calgary Metropolitan Plan is only vaguely outlined right now, but the intention is certainly to make it more specific and detailed. What it will look like is unknown at this point and as one MD of Foothills councillor described it, “it’s like signing a blank contract.” One thing we do know is that urban nodes are in no way optional, although the location of the urban nodes has been left up to the local government (see p. 17 of the CMP which puts these nodes in the MUST category). There has been no indication that the overall CMP is “flexible.” In fact, the opposite is true. The Alberta government’s own news release states that “Regional plans will be binding on provincial and local governments and other decision makers.” Amendments will be made to the Municipal Government Act as part of Bill 36, the new Alberta Land Stewardship Act that is working its way through the legislature right now. Since the PC government is in a majority position, there is no reason to believe it won’t pass as is. The bill has been called “scary” by Opposition critics and the Environmental Law Centre says it gives “broad discretion” to the government and limits rights to appeal (https://nocalgaryveto.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/land-development-bill-scary/). Here is the complete list of changes planned for the MGA:

• Compliance amendments require that municipal plans and bylaws and the decisions that flow from these (by subdivision authorities, development authorities, municipal planning commissions and development appeal boards) are in conformance with regional plans.

• Intermunicipal development plan amendments allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs to require two or more municipal authorities to establish an intermunicipal development plan and to define the matters to be included in, and the timeline for completion of, the plan.

• Minister’s power amendments allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs to exercise additional actions to ensure compliance if a municipality does not comply with regional plans.

• Process amendments require municipalities to determine whether public consultation is necessary in amending plans and bylaws to conform with a regional plan. If council determines that further consultation is not necessary, it may proceed without giving notice and holding a hearing.

(Source: Government of Alberta http://bit.ly/fzWZM)

On your second point about the different rural mission, compared to urban municipalities, the CMP thus far has shown very little recognition of the differing nature of the rural communities and imposes an entirely urban formula on the MD’s and small towns covered by the plan. Even the compact urban nodes, which have been pushed out in the middle of the rural countryside, would suggest little or no understanding of the nature of the rural lifestyle. And as for reducing friction and rivalry, I fail to see how taking away the MD’s control over its own land and handing it wholesale to Calgary will reduce friction or rivalry–it can only aggravate it. On the other hand, by forcing a double majority voting mechanism on the CRP and giving Calgary a veto, the MD is pretty much bound and gagged into doing what the urban planners say is good for Calgary. I guess the screaming is somewhat muffled by this scenario!!

Also, all indications are that the City of Calgary intends to require that it provides the necessary infrastructure to support the mandatory compact urban nodes (sewer and wastewater) and charge the MD’s for this service. There is no word yet on what this will cost so it is completely premature to speculate that it will be less costly. (https://nocalgaryveto.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/part_one_calgary/)

I know that the MD of Rocky View is a source of great frustration for many in the area. But I’m afraid that your call for “open and empowered citizen debate” has LESS chance of taking place under the Calgary Regional Partnership than under the current MD of Rocky View. At least you can vote for the MD of Rocky View councillors…you can’t vote for the mayor of Calgary.

Thanks for listening.
Jody