A new residential development is in the works for Springbank, despite opposition to a land redesignation and accompanying conceptual scheme.
According to Rocky View County (RVC) planner Jessica Anderson, the conceptual scheme will guide the development of River Edge, a 49-lot community on the south side of Springbank Road and the west side of Range Road 34.
“Change in development style is tough,” said Area Coun. Kim McKylor during a regular council meeting Nov. 26. “When I hear comments that we have a bazillion-year land inventory – well, it’s probably true, if everyone still wanted two-acre homes. The truth is, they don’t. I think exploring new housing forms and new housing types actually attracts young families to our community, which, in my mind, is a benefit.”
The applications were previously considered by council June 25. Despite administration’s recommendation to refuse the development, first reading was granted, but McKylor then moved to table the application until additional technical information was submitted – including a stormwater management plan, a servicing strategy, a revised transportation network and a revised conceptual scheme.
Administration was satisfied with the new technical information regarding water, stormwater and wastewater, Anderson said, although technical concerns related to sewage will need to be addressed at subdivision.
Wastewater is proposed to be managed with a new wastewater treatment plant – an Orenco system – from which treated effluent is pumped into a subsurface disposal field. The location and size of the disposal field were not provided, Anderson said, nor was soil testing conducted to assess the suitability of the land to accept treated effluent.
Council voted 6-3 to set aside two policies related to servicing that state wastewater systems are to be transferred to RVC. According to Anderson, the applicant proposed retaining ownership of the system. Administration determined transferring ownership to the County was not feasible, given the low density of the proposed development and high projected operational costs of the system.
Administration determined the application was inconsistent with a number of statutory plans, Anderson said, including the County Plan and the RVC/City of Calgary Intermunicipal Plan.
“However, council provided direction by granting first reading following the public hearing and provided direction to the applicant to provide further information,” she added. “Therefore, if council is satisfied with the new technical information provided, administration recommends approval.”
Unlike at the original public hearing in June, the second public hearing – to discuss this new information – saw a number of people speak in opposition to the development. Some residents felt there was a lack of consultation and transparency by the applicants, Price Boychuk & Jackson Corp., and raised several other issues, including the application’s inconsistency with County policy.
“It is concerning and unsettling, given that professional planners at both RVC and the City of Calgary did not support this application, that it is moving forward,” said resident Jared Temple-Oberle, reading the prepared statement of one of his neighbours.
“Even our community’s own councillor did not support this application, and yet this council allowed this ill-conceived development past first reading. It is clear the neighbours most impacted by this development have not been consulted. Furthermore, and more importantly, this development continues to have serious issues around water, sewage, stormwater and traffic.”
In rebuttal, Robert Price with Price Boychuk & Jackson Corp. said three open houses were held between January 2018 and June 2019, which resulted in positive feedback from the direct neighbours.
“There’s lots of technical issues on this one, there’s no doubt about it,” McKylor said. “They’ll have to be solved at the subdivision stage.”
Couns. Kevin Hanson, Samanntha Wright and Crystal Kissel voted against setting aside policy and granting further readings to the bylaws. Hanson and Kissel both said they felt the timing of the development was wrong, while Wright cited resident concern for her opposition.
“We heard from people today, and this application does require setting aside a great amount of policy,” Wright said. “When we’re going to set aside that amount of policy, I think we have to really weigh in the pros and the cons.”
Ultimately, second and third reading of both the redesignation and the conceptual scheme were granted 6-3.
