Home »
City backs East Hill proposal going before RDEK
Just in time for the upcoming election, the East Hill land use development question has returned to the City of Cranbrook.
This time, though, the city is on the inside looking out at the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK), which has referred a zoning and Rockyview Official Community Plan text and map amendment bylaws to it for its consideration.
And after much pontification and ballyhoo Oct. 3, city council voted five to one to not object to RDEK Bylaws No. 2341 and 2342.
Councillor Bob Whetham was the lone voice of opposition to the referral, while Mayor Scott Manjak and councilors Denise Pallesen, Diana J. Scott, Liz Schatshneider and Jim Wavrecan gave it thumbs up. Coun. Angus Davis was absent.
Council’s decision followed a presentation by Summit West Investments’ principal Sheldon Isaman, who outlined slightly altered plans for the East Hill property, also commonly known as the ‘Rampart’ property, a 983 hectare (2,429.2 acres) chunk of land east of the city.
The property was the subject of the divisive 2009 referendum that asked voters if they supported the city expanding its boundaries to include. The referendum narrowly fell to the ‘no’ side, with 2,616 votes against 2,581 in favour.
Undeterred after about 8.5 years of processes, Isaman has taken his dream of creating 200 rural lots and an equestrian centre into the RDEK bailiwick.
“We’ve followed all the rules we’ve been given,” Isaman told council, after complaining about the most recent efforts of the Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook, the group that led the charge against the East Hill boundary expansion, to bottle up his plans.
“Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook have been creating much political hay. Unfortunately, I can only conclude this is only about politics,” he said, adding that he believes the group’s “primary goals are anti-development, anti-growth and anti-investment.”
Isaman said he is frustrated at the group’s actions because “simply saying no to everything without providing alternatives” is counter-productive to a community.
“I respected the result of the referendum. Since then I have worked with the (RDEK) process. My proposal is to see up to 200 homes,” he said, pointing out that if he gets the regional go-ahead, his project will create jobs for currently struggling trades, hardware and lumber stores and create further momentum for the city, to go along with the Shadow Mountain and Wildstone developments.
“Imagine bringing in new families” to the area for the schools and betterment of the economy, he asked council. “It’s safe to say the business world is watching.”
Mayor Manjak allowed several rounds of comments from his council to allow for discussion and views to be heard.
Council members in support of providing thumbs up to the RDEK echoed one another, as they noted the result of the 2009 referendum means the East Hill land issue is now out of their hands.
Whetham, the former long-time chief planner with the RDEK, while pointing out he sees some merits in Isaman’s proposal, said the city is going against its own Official Community Plan (OCP) by supporting a development proposal within a 10 kilometre radius of the city.
“If council doesn’t honour its bylaws, basically, they’re so much window dressing,” he said, adding that the city should follow the “proper process” outlined in its OCP. “We can’t just arbitrarily choose which developments we will support. We haven’t even done a land use inventory.”
Whetham said he sees “a lot of good things about it (development idea). I’d be more than happy to sit down with council, the area director and staff to debate the merit of it. Let’s take a look and see what Mr. Isaman can do.”
He also suggested the timing of the return of the East Hill issue doesn’t sit well with him.
“I’m not able to support this thing in the last few weeks before an election,” he said, adding he doesn’t appreciate having to make a decision on such a matter after only having had one hour to consider the amended plans
“That’s not the way to do business.”
Whetham’s fellow councilors see things completely differently.
“I say bravo. I really would have liked to have seen this plan in the city of Cranbrook,” said Coun. Scott, turning to Isaman and adding, “You’ve gone through all the hoops. I think you’ve been totally responsible. We need the investment in our region.
Coun. Jim Wavrecan, running for mayor Nov. 19, led the charge against Whetham.
“One of the things that have to be abundantly clear is where the city stands,” he began, noting that the city’s OCP position on not supporting development within 10 km outside city limits is predicated on them asking previous boundary developers to become part of the municipal structure.
“In this particular case you went the extra mile,” he said to Isaman, noting the city chose not to support inclusion of the East Hill property and now the regional district’s (Rockyview) OCP takes “precedence. For the sake of the region,” he said he hopes Isaman is successful.
Wavrecan pointed out again that the result of the referendum means that Cranbrook’s “jurisdictional interest in that process ends. It would be hypocritical for us to apply the OCP now. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too,” he said, adding it would also be “unethical” to oppose it and he noted that the city’s lawyer told council it would be “unfair.
“The referendum question was not about development,” Wavrecan continued. “It was about boundary extension. We’re talking about a development on the periphery of our city that is offering 300 man years of employment.”
Coun. Denise Pallesen said OCP’s are a “living document” and likened them to a family budget that changes overtime as financial situations evolve.
And the referendum spoke clearly, she added. “We have no control over this land.”
At that the whispering in the public gallery from some seated there changed to audible grumbling, prompting Manjak to interject, ask for quiet and state, “you don’t have the right to interrupt.”
Pallesen said the developer held a series of public meetings in March and only 42 people showed up, meaning “99.7 per cent” of city residents didn’t attend. That small figure tells her that people aren’t too excited about the East Hill plans any longer.
Scott said she is “frustrated” by the ongoing opposition from the Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook.
“The whole idea of the referendum was to keep the land in Cranbrook so we could have our say,” she said. “Once you say no it is not in our hands anymore. As time goes on the rationale for whatever you want, which is apparently anti-development, becomes more clouded. Now we are left with what we are left with. The decision is up to the RDEK, no matter what we say.”
Manjak agreed, noting that it is now up to the residents of Electoral Area C to decide on the future of that property.
The city should be working with Area C to make it “the best it can be” and if the residents there say no, then the city will support that decision.
“It’s about community building. It’s about recognizing what we have and don’t have,” he said.
“We are being extended an arm and a hand by the regional district to work with them,” said the current RDEK board chair. “I can tell you, being there (regional board table) for 12 years, it’s not going to be an easy decision.”
RDEK Bylaws 2341 and 2342 cover OCP and zoning amendments needed to allow for development of the property, which is slated to be developed in six to eight phases over a five to seven year period, according to Isaman. The bylaws cover the first two phases, which features 78 lots and the equestrian centre.
In total, 200 lots are proposed with a minimum lot size of one ha. Plans call for onsite septic and water wells and 30% of the property is to be set aside as open space that will be managed by an eventual homeowners’ association.
Entry to the project would be off Highway 3, near the current Highway 3 and 93/95 junction, roughly three kilometers from city boundaries.
“With respect to the proposed number of allowed dwelling units, a review of this proposal indicates the initial development consists of a maximum 200 units. The proposed zoning for the subdivision allows for carriage houses, which are excluded from the total allowable units established in the new OCP policy. Carriage houses are being defined as a ‘”dwelling unit having a total floor space of not more than 120m2 in area,” which can be attached or detached from a single family dwelling and contain a garage on the ground storey,” reported city chief administrative officer Will Pearce. “Based on these provisions there could be a potential for an additional 200 dwelling units for a potential total of 400 dwelling units for the initial development. Using a factor of an average of 2.5 persons per household, there could be an estimated potential population of 1,000 people in the proposed development, not including the potential number of people in the mixed use areas.”
Pearce noted that the “the proposed development appears to constitute the beginnings of a new and potentially significant suburban settlement in close proximity to the city.”
Ian Cobb/e-KNOW
