Rocky View County (RVC) council is going to give it another try, as it passed an amended version of its Janet Area Structure Plan during the Sept. 5 meeting.
The County’s original Janet Area Structure Plan (ASP) was rejected by the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board (CMRB) during its May 19 meeting.
The CMRB cited in its rejection that the RVC Janet ASP was, “inconsistent with the (CMRB’s regional) Growth Plan.”
The main reason for the CMRB’s rejection was the lack of full servicing available in the Janet area for the proposed future business uses on the 989 hectare site.
“The proposed limited-service servicing concept for the new Employment Area development is inconsistent with Growth Plan policy 3.1.3.1.,” the CMRB decision explained, “which states that: ‘New development in Preferred Growth Areas shall make efficient and cost-effective use of existing and planned infrastructure through agreements with service providers and connect to municipally owned services, or piped water and wastewater services provided by others.’”
The CMRB went on to say before the ASP could be approved it must, “connect to municipally owned services, or piped water and wastewater services provided by others.”
RVC administration proposed some amendments to its original Janet Area Structure Plan during the Sept. 5 meeting, which it hoped might represent a compromise position between the municipality’s vision for the site and the CMRB’s.
It hoped by commissioning a larger County-wide servicing study, which the developer would pay for, it could address the concerns expressed in the May 19 decision. If the servicing study revealed that only limited servicing was required at the site until future development filled in, the County would expect the CMRB to support RVC’s Janet ASP application.
On the other hand, RVC administration said it would also launch an appeal if the application was rejected again using the CMRB’s little used “exception clause” mechanism.
RVC Manager of Planning Dominic Kazmierczak confirmed the county would, in fact, be the first municipality to attempt to use this mechanism as a test case for all CMRB members, if it chose to go down that route.
Kazmierczak went on to state the County certainly believed there was a long term need to open up the Janet lands to development, and getting an approved ASP was a much needed first step.
Division 3 Coun. and Reeve Crystal Kissel expressed some skepticism that the amendments proposed by staff would do much to move the needle on gaining approval of the Janet ASP through the CMRB.
“We didn’t put any hardline in there that would say there is a trigger (for full servicing),” she stated, and asked Kazmierczak to explain the lack.
“I think if firmer wording would have been used it’s committing the County to almost that immediate servicing solution,” stated Kazmierczak. “The ‘trigger’ is set up within amendment B1, when it says, ‘when it is warranted.’ And so the assessment given by the applicant would determine when that point came. So there is a trigger, but it is one which is done on a case by case basis rather than the County driving this against the will of a developer.”
Division 5 Coun. Greg Boehlke felt that was the way it should be– with the landowner guiding development when he or she was ready for the next stages rather than being mandated to do something at a certain time when it was not yet needed.
“I think (staff) did a good job here of compromising for a well-established area,” he stated. “I believe the (CMRB) board is out-of-line in coming in and saying we should have servicing there when it's a very successful commercial park without (full) servicing. I think we have made a good compromise here, and I would wholeheartedly support it.”
Kissel said despite her reservations she too would support the amendments proposed by the planning department to the Janet Area Structure Plan, and the re-submission of the plan to the CMRB for approval.
“I am hoping we hit the mark,” she said, “and this just hasn’t been another exercise for our administration. I do have a little concern that maybe we haven’t quite gotten there, but I am going to support it.”
Division 1 Coun. Kevin Hanson, who wears another hat as vice-chair of the CMRB board, also felt re-submitting the amended ASP was worth the attempt.
“This is in good faith, and we are going to put this forward and see how we make out,” he said.
Division 6 Coun. and Deputy Reeve Sunny Samra then put forward two motions for approval. To approve the amendment to the Janet Area Structure Plan, and, secondly, to re-submit it to the CMRB.
Both motions were approved unanimously.
