Land Use Bylaw passes third reading

After nearly two years of work, Canmore council has passed third reading of its Land Use Bylaw.

First reading of the comprehensive planning document was in Feb. 2010 and after two public hearings, working sessions with the development industry and numerous amendments, it was enacted earlier this month.

Planner Steve de Keijzer said the majority of changes proposed by administration at third reading were the result of a revised sustainability screening process.

However, third reading was not a matter of rubber stamping the bylaw, which saw all councillors attempt to make changes.

Most significant of the proposed changes came from Councillor Hans Helder, who argued the bylaw should be technical and has too many references to secondary documents like the Mining the Future vision statement.

“There are lots of things in this that have nothing to do with the Land Use Bylaw,” Helder said. “This gives it a certain statutory authority and I don’t think it realistically adds value… I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

“I think we need to be more rigid in our thinking and analysis of this kind of major legislated document.”

Mayor Ron Casey defended the LUB, mentioning things like the vision statement as it is about more than just land use.

“Part of the reason to do Mining the Future and the vision statement is to, in fact, incorporate these into our Land Use Bylaw and into our Municipal Development Plan,” Casey said. “This makes sure we have a community component integrated throughout.”

The mayor argued the community has made itself loud and clear that land use is not about what the highest economic value is, but that social values also apply.

Helder argued the bylaw is overly complex with 40 land use districts and 29 direct control districts, incorporates non-statutory documents and uses editorial comments instead of articulated and supported planning principles.

“In my point of view, work needs to begin soon to correct these problems,” he said. “I could think of ways to take 100 pages out without working hard.”

Helder amended the bylaw so that in five years it would have to be brought back in front of council for a full review.

The mayor said shorter and easier is not necessarily better.

“The Land Use Bylaw is complicated for a reason,” he said.

Casey successfully removed seniors housing and supportive living from the Bow Valley Trail district, with only Helder opposing the motion.

The mayor said he doesn’t feel the land use, which he termed to be residential, should be in the midst of a commercial area without strong pedestrian routes.

Helder said it fits in well as long-term care facilities are commercial operations that provide support for people who are not very mobile.

Changes made to the transitional business district, otherwise known as Aspen Park, were also taken out by council motion.

Helder said the wording change by administration substantially changes the district.

“I don’t think this is a necessary restriction,” he said.

The reworded and approved language sets out that uses in the district should be compatible with adjacent residential and commercial ones. However, wording that went on to say those uses are more restricted than in primary commercial districts of the town centre area was removed.

Councillor John Borrowman successfully argued that financial institutions be put back into the district as a discretionary use given the fact one has been approved already.

Helder went on to propose removing max gross floor area restrictions on retail in the district, but was defeated.

Casey argued Canmore has worked hard to manage retail size and to open that up “goes against everything this community has said and done over the last 20 years.”

However, council recognized some businesses in Aspen Park that could be considered retail are larger than the restriction.

Coun. Joanna McCallum suggested 200 square metres as the maximum, but was defeated.

Coun. Helder took issue with the section of the bylaw that recognizes clotheslines as energy saving devices and permitted in all residential districts.

He said it is inconsistent to make a sweeping statement like that when significant time and effort in the bylaw goes towards defining architectural controls and guidelines.

Only Coun. Gordie Miskow sided with Helder, whose motion to remove the wording was defeated.

“As a natual step community I think it is a statement to say we believe in clotheslines as energy saving devices,” McCallum said.

Helder also proposed a defeated motion to remove green building requirements from the bylaw and have them published as guidelines.

“We ought to let the market decide whether or not building should be at a green standard,” he said. “I am concerned this is another layer of rules, process and cost and that is not something I think we need.”

Coun. Ed Russell brought up the issue of parking in the bylaw, but was unsuccessful in amending the bylaw to remove fractional parking requirements.

He also tried to delete the section of the bylaw that allows for increased density in exchange for perpetually affordable housing.