Rocky View County council agreed to table a Bearspaw subdivision application, Dec. 13.
The move came after a lengthy discussion, when area-Councillor Al Sacuta made a motion to table the application.
“I would like to see more neighbourhood buy-in and the stormwater issue addressed,” said Sacuta.
The application was for an 18 residential-lot community ranging in size from two to 3.25 acres located 3.2 kilometres northwest of Calgary, 2.4 kilometres north of Burma Road and immediately east of Bearspaw Road.
The development’s water was to be supplied by the Rocky View Water Co-op, while wastewater was to be managed on each lot by an advanced private sewage treatment system. Stormwater was to be managed through a combination of an onsite pond and drainage to adjacent lands or alternatively managed completely within the 52.5-acre community.
The County received 11 letters in opposition and one letter in support of the application out of 47 notification letters it sent out to neighbours. Opponents cited density, environmental damage, traffic, impact to lifestyle and drainage issues as concerns.
Sacuta was unconvinced the development’s drainage plan would work and was concerned the developer’s had no easement agreements in place should there be overflow of the ponds.
“Two-acre subdivisions are the worst for having stormwater problems,” he said. “My belief is the proposal is inconsistent with the surrounding property.”
He was also concerned about the lack of community support.
“I believe the proposal is overwhelmingly opposed by surrounding residents,” he said.
“To force this... would be tantamount to development rape.”
Reeve Rolly Ashdown said the development wasn’t consistent with the adjacent properties, the majority of which have a minimum size of four acres.
“I believe after reading all the letters that it doesn’t fit in the community,” he said.
Councillor Paul McLean argued council should give the applicants new planning criteria rather than rejecting the proposal.
He added the land has already been designated as Residential One, a decision made by council in June, 2010.
“Table this to provide prescriptive terms... don’t just deny them,” said McLean.
McLean’s suggestion of tabling the decision was well received with council unanimously voting in favour of having the subdivision application reappear before them at a future, undetermined date.
