[vc_row][vc_column]
As the following table shows, TSMV’s latest development proposal ignores several foundational plans, bylaws and agreements that are in place to protect the character of our community, our quality of life, and our ability to coexist with wildlife. Who will benefit from these proposed changes other than an already wealthy developer?
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/12″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_single_image image=”1746″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row disable_element=”yes”][vc_column][vc_column_text]
| TSMV Request | Why Plan/Bylaw Exists | Established | Requirements to change: |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expand Urban Growth Boundary | Limits footprint of town; prevents it from becoming a city; ensures balance between nature & development. | 1998 Municipal Development Plan | Only if community “benefits” and no unacceptable environmental impacts. Requires 3 readings by Town Council and public hearing |
| Rezone ~33 ha from Conservation Wildlands to urban development | Recognizes importance of the mouth of the Wind Valley for wildlife | 1998 Land Use Bylaw | Requires 3 readings by Town Council and a public hearing. |
| Contravene Land Use Bylaw for 300-450m-wide setback to improve a squeezed wildlife corridor at unfinished golf course. | 2002 Golder Report jointly commissioned by Town of Canmore and TSMV called for open space buffer (i.e. golf course) to compensate for inadequate along-valley wildlife corridor. | 2003/04 Sections 14.16.4.1(b) & (c) Canmore Land Use Bylaw | Amendment or repeal of the setback regulations. |
| Double the number of residential units that can still be built on TSMV lands from 3447 to 6750 units (doesn’t include 3100 additional secondary suites and 420 PAH units). | Original 1992 Natural Resources Conservation Board decision put a limit on # of units that could be built due to sensitivity of the area. | 1998 Bylaw 1-98DC, Section 14.9.2.4 |
Amendment of Land Use Bylaw |
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]