It is rare to hear spontaneous eruptions of applause, cheering, and shouts of “Yes!” during Town of Cochrane council meetings, but that’s just what happened a number of times June 27, during a discussion about the contentious application for a proposed infill housing project in Gleneagles
It was the fourth time up to the plate for the developer (which has appeared sometimes under different company names) to ask permission to build on the 1.66-hectare parcel known as the Jones Estate Lands, or Glenvista Peak.
According to Town bylaws, landowners are permitted to submit similar applications on the same parcel of land after waiting six months.
Previous development on the site included a single-family residence with an accessory building and an unobstructed view of the Rocky Mountains to the west.
The developer wants to build 16 single-storey semi-detached houses on the site.
The application was formally circulated in Gleneagles between July 31 and August 31, 2020 and community notification signs were posted on the property.
During the circulation period, Town administration received 62 responses from adjacent landowners and interested parties. All of them were opposed to the project – some using words like “vehemently opposed” and adding they were tired of the repeated applications.
Many cited groundwater and run-off as their main concerns.
“Our concerns are that any future residential or commercial development on the Jones Estates Lands will likely have a negative impact on the surface and ground water draining into the properties below, further exacerbating the groundwater and land slippage issues that are an ongoing fact of life in the Gleneagles subdivision,” read one emailed response to the Town.
During the public hearing on June 7, area residents’ concerns related to site access and egress, bike and pedestrian movements, slope stability, storm water management, legal matters, and preferences to find an alternative use for the land.
At the June 27, council meeting, in its report accompanying the consideration of the land use amendment that would allow the application to proceed to the next steps, the Planning Services department stated, “Administration believes that the land is suitable for the development of the 16 proposed units.”
“Further ability to refine the site servicing, etc. remains at the more detailed subdivision or Development Permit stages,” the Town continued.
Another section of the report alludes to the seriousness of the decision faced by council over this application, stating that legal counsel has advised that if they deny the application, they may be challenged in court by the applicant. Adversely, staff’s report added that if council approves it, the Town may be challenged in court by “other stakeholders.”
After each councillor and the mayor weighed in with their disapproval, and after adjourning to go in-camera to consult with the Town’s lawyer, council clearly had no appetite for allowing the application to proceed any further.
Coun. Alex Reed strongly disagreed with the idea of allowing the proposal to proceed with an understanding that outstanding concerns could be addressed at a later date.
“We are in fact at the most critical point in this process. I’m not opposing this in terms of popularity but because it’s the right thing to do,” he said. “The community is complete and what’s being proposed here adds nothing to the established residential community.
Deputy mayor Marni Fedeyko echoed Reed’s assessment, adding her main concern was about community safety and emergency access.
Fedeyko added it might be a good time to send a message to developers about council’s approach to new applications.
“It has to be a net benefit, and if it’s not a benefit, then it’s not necessary that we just approve everybody,” she said.
“To try to shoe-horn an infill community into an existing community just does not make sense to me,” Reed added in his concluding remarks before the vote, to scattered applause among the gallery.
When the motion to move to second reading was then unanimously voted down (thus disallowing multi-resident housing on the site), the cheering from the gallery was much louder.
So the contentious issue has been put to bed – for another six months, at least.
