A popular mountain community in Alberta will try to appeal a provincial court ruling ordering it to allow two major developments that would nearly double the city’s population in the coming decades.
The council had rejected the proposed Three Sisters Village and Smith Creek projects in Canmore, west Calgary. But the Alberta Court of Land and Property Rights ruled in May that both developments could go ahead.
The council voted Tuesday to order its administration to seek permission to challenge those decisions in the Alberta Court of Appeal.
“The council is not against development, but we need development that is aligned with what our community needs,” said Mayor Sean Krausert.
The two proposals on the east bank of Canmore include about 80 percent of the city’s remaining buildable land and raised concerns about affordable housing and wildlife.
The court’s decisions, however, found that both developments met the parameters set out in a 1992 review of the Three Sisters area by the Natural Resources Conservation Board.
David Taylor, president of Three Sisters Mountain Village Properties Ltd., said his company had taken all necessary steps to make sure the plans fit in with the 1992 ruling.
“If the court decides to hear this appeal, TSMVPL absolutely believes that the court will conclude that the [tribunal] the decisions are reasonable, “he said in a statement.
“The development of the Three Sisters lands was determined to be in the public interest by the NRCB, and the [tribunal] agreed that our plans are consistent with the NRCB’s decision. “
“Incredibly difficult situation”
During Tuesday’s council meeting, Krausert said the 1992 decision “recognized the interests of the local community and maintained the discretion of the municipality to decide how the land in Canmore would be developed, none of which was recognized in the [tribunal] decisions “.
Three board members were unable to vote because they are nominated in a civil lawsuit by the same promoter, but the decision to file an appeal was passed 4-0.
“This is an incredibly difficult situation,” Coun said. Tanya Foubert. “Given the remaining legal and competition issues, I am in favor of applying for leave to appeal.
“The NRCB board itself, in its 1992 decision, stated that it had no desire to see the interests of local residents frustrated by the sterilization of the effectiveness of the public process in terms of local planning.”
Coun. Jeff Mah, who publicly opposed the developments before joining the city council, added that it was an important decision that he spent a lot of time considering.
“The future we are looking for is a place where all our residents can thrive with enough affordable housing,” he said. “These proposals [projects] they do not provide enough for our community and, in any case, they will aggravate our livelihood challenges. “
He said the council must also consider how it affects the environment and what residents want for their community.
Last year, a public hearing on the two developments lasted seven days and more than 200 people were heard concerned about the possible effects on the already crowded city and the wildlife in the area.
Mah added that the 1992 decision was made a generation ago and the city is still struggling to find a fair way forward.
“Our community needs development,” he said. “We can’t live in a time capsule. However, the development that takes place must be the right kind.”