Two Springbank residents who filed for a judicial review of a Rocky View County (RVC) public hearing about a commercial development project received a verdict from the Court of Queen’s Bench, Aug. 29.
Justice Ron Stevens gave his verbal summations at a courthouse in Calgary, dismissing claims that a public hearing held Sept. 11, 2012 was unfair. After the controversial 12-hour hearing, in a split vote, RVC council approved the conceptual scheme for Bingham Crossing and amended the North Springbank Area Structure Plan (ASP).
Bingham Crossing is a commercial and seniors housing development project roughly 80 acres in size located kitty corner from Calaway Park in Springbank.
Doug Bulger and Nancy Desai, with the support of the Springbank Community Planning Association, filed for legal action against the county April 26.
John Blair, the applicants’ lawyer, called for a “do-over” of the hearing, claiming unfairness during the hearing procedure.
He argued that the amendment to the North Springbank ASP contradicts the core principle of the area structure plan created in 1979, which states no commercial development should occur north of Highway 1. He said because it would affect the larger community, the notification letters should have been sent out to a larger populous than just the adjacent landowners.
He said the County’s policy states when staff see a potential substantial impact, staff will err on the side of caution and send notification to the wider area. He argued that during a 2010 Bingham Crossing public hearing, it was brought up by a resident that more people should have received the notification, therefore staff was aware that the amendment proposed during the 2012 public hearing would have a substantial impact.
Blair also argued that roughly 200 emails from residents opposed to the development were disregarded by council and referred to as “spam” by one councillor and completely dismissed by another. He said even though these emails were sent to council in a mass reply-all style, there was no specification in an advertisement by RVC that group emails wouldn’t be accepted. He also argued that council went against staff recommendations to delay the public hearing until March 15, 2013 so a context study of the area could be completed.
Blair also said two councillors who voted on the approval of Bingham Crossing should have disclosed having received election campaign contributions from the developer.
Defense lawyer for RVC, William Barclay, said during the judicial application in April, the hearing was fair and there was no legitimate reason for the complaint.
He also said, “There was no evidence that council failed to consider emails,” council isn’t bound to follow the recommendations of staff and the County followed the requirements for the notification area as outlined in the Municipal Government Act.
In the judge’s review of the hearing, he found that council had met the threshold for fair process and the hearing will not be held again. A written statement is expected to be released and available to the public after press time.
RVC was awarded costs as part of the judge’s review.
RVC Communications Manager Grant Kaiser said county lawyers are still calculating what those costs are and that information has not yet been made public.
Ron Renaud with Rencor Developments Inc. – the developer for Bingham Crossing said although the action was brought towards RVC, the company applied to be a named party in the case in order to be able to defend their position during the judicial review process.
“I think the action itself was pretty frivolous and that we defended our position very well,” said Renaud.
The verdict is scheduled to be heard Sept. 19.
With files from Sylvia Cole.
