ROB MURRAY: The big vote on Thursday and the defeat of the Three Sisters Village Area Structure Plan. Mayor Borrowman, you have a pretty good poker face most of the time, but did I detect a hint of surprise that you were the lone vote in support of the ASP on that one?

MAYOR JOHN BORROWMAN: You may have detected that. I was a little surprised. I didn’t think it would go 6-1, and that’s fine. I’m always prepared to accept Council’s decisions as the right decisions. Council’s job is to make the best decisions we can for the community. One of the greatest concerns was that the overall footprint of the development would be so impactful on the Valley. There were discussions and concerns voiced about how the proposed development would move us away from our climate action targets and towards more population, so that certainly informed the discussion at Council. We heard from a great many people in the community who are concerned about growth and the possible impact of development on Three Sisters lands. Specifically, there was concerns voiced quite clearly about the possible impact of the functionality of wildlife corridors and a clear voice of concern regarding development on undermined lands. Those concerns clearly weighed heavily on Council’s mind with the result being that most Councilors didn’t feel they could support the bylaw.

RM: Something I’ve always respected about you, Mayor Borrowman, is that you’re very process-oriented and you respect the process. The fact that you were on the losing end of this vote, that’s democracy at work. That’s the way it’s supposed to happen.

JB: Exactly. Rob. We elect seven people to represent us, and those seven people are obligated to make the best decision we can. It gets complicated, particularly when you’re approving bylaws with amendments to amendments. It appears at times like heebee-jeebie to people that are watching, but by and large this Council has done a great amount of work in the almost four years we’ve had. I think the community should be quite pleased with the work that Council has done.

RM: I do want to say a big thanks to you and your fellow Councilors for all the work you put in on this Three Sisters file. It’s been an absolutely huge amount of work, and I really think the fact that you’ve done this exhaustive process is really important for the next steps, because it’s not like this is just going to end right now. I mean, there’s some talk about Three Sisters appealing this decision.

TANYA FOUBERT: To the Municipal Government Board. They have 60 days to appeal.

RM: If it gets to the Municipal Government Board, it’s very important that the Town has properly gone through this process, that there aren’t any flaws in the process, to have this decision stand.

JB: That’s exactly right, Rob, which is one reason being so focused on detail and process is important. These are big issues we’re deciding on, particularly when it comes to land development. The landowners have very clear rights that are ensconced within the law. When we’re making decisions that affect privately owned lands, whether it’s a massive tract of land like Three Sisters or a lot that you’ve bought and want to develop, there’s a process that has to be followed. There are rights that the landowners have. With the NRCB decision report, that’s thrown a very odd monkey wrench into development in Canmore, and as you probably know there was an additional clause added in the Municipal Government Act years ago which is affectionately known as the ‘Canmore Clause.’ It references very specifically decisions that are made on lands that are effected by an NRCB decisions. If this ends up in front of the MGB, the MGB could make a ruling on this issue that may not be appreciated by many in the community. We try really hard to make decisions at Council that would stand if there was a challenge at the MGB. I have no certainty about what’s coming next.

 

 

RM: An idea that was brought forward on Tuesday during the defeat of the Area Structure Plan for Three Sisters Village, something that you put on the table, was this idea of a conservation land trust. It’s an idea that doesn’t necessarily have to die with the ASP. What exactly were you pitching here?

JB: I wasn’t putting my idea on the table. I was recognizing the strong interest it’s been voiced for years in the community around a conservation land trust. The amendment that I proposed only opened the door for those discussions to occur between the landowner and the conservation land trust, if one was created, and I thought there was value in putting it into the ASP to make it a part of the record. There have been these discussions – I was involved in discussions with good friends in the environmental community, Karsten Heuer, Bart Robinson, and a couple of others, perhaps in 2012/13, about this idea. We were looking at the East Kootenay Conservation Land Trust as a model. Through the last couple of months of discussion it seems to be getting traction, and I think we’ll see some real concrete action in the community. People doing fundraising and contributing their own monies towards a land trust that could then be used perhaps to acquire some of those private lands, particularly around the identified pinch points as they’re referred to by the environmental community. The ASP wasn’t approved so that amendment goes nowhere, but the intent is certainly strong in the community.

RM: That would involve conversation with the landowner. The landowner would have to be open to this idea, wouldn’t they?

JB: Yes.

TF: And it could potentially be very expensive, because these types of processes are looking at the appraised market value. I’m not so sure that we all would agree on how much some of these lands are worth, but it’s a great idea, and it’s a great way, in a grassroots way, to be able to participate in seeing the solution that people would like to see happen occur.

JB: I know there’s also been some discussion around suggesting the town should expropriate the lands or some of the lands. Expropriation is always an opportunity for Council but it’s generally the last approach. With expropriation, the municipality would be obliged to pay the landowner the appraised value, as Tanya noted. What that is, I couldn’t tell you. With the defeat of this Area Structure Plan, the 2004 Area Structure Plan is still in place. The landowner has the ability to go ahead and develop quite a bit of the Resort Centre area, with commercial primarily now, tourism based. There’s quite a high value on those lands. The rest of what was dedicated in the 2004 ASP as a golf course lands, I don’t know what the appraised value on those lands would be. There’s a lot more questions on this than answers at this point.

Filed under: Canmore, Mayor John Borrowman, Mountain Insider, Three Sisters Mountain Village