A proposed housing development in the Cochrane neighbourhood of The Willows of River Heights, commonly known as The Willows, which has faced intense opposition from local residents, has been put on hold by Town council after councillors unanimously voted to bring the developer back to answer more questions.
The Willows development plan is almost two years in the works, and the original vision the developer had for the neighbourhood has changed significantly since 2023, when it was first brought before council. A major priority, both for local residents and for councillors, has been the protection of the wetland known as Wetland 80, which is so depleted that it was approved for infill by the Province in 2024.
The Willows Neighbourhood Plan, originally created in 2012, identified two wetlands in the community set to be protected long-term. However, due to the stagnation of the wetland in The Willows, the Town said the developer contacted Alberta Environment about potentially removing it, and replacing it with open space and amenities that would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the document and provide open-space for adjacent land owners, but would no longer be the original wetland.
Last November, residents of The Willows protested the planned removal of the wetland, arguing environmental concerns were not being factored into the Town’s decision-making process and protesting their worry that the displaced water in the wetland would end up in neighbouring basements.
Administration’s council report stated the proposed land use concept allows for medium density housing in the form of small multi-unit buildings and townhomes around the wetland to the west and south, with park space in the northeast corner of the subject lands.
“This provides the opportunity for slightly higher density and more housing options than the current [land use allotment] and retains the wetland as a natural feature,” the report reads.
The new proposal featured medium-density, two and three storey townhouses, being built around the wetland. The proposal presented showed the developer had taken residents' concerns to heart. A new proposal left the wetland area largely untouched, but councillors were still left with a lot of questions regarding the nitty-gritty details of the planned development.
“The wetland is protected, which is the main focus,” said Councillor Marni Fedeyko. “There are so many communities building out in Cochrane right now, it’s not like we have a shortage, in my mind, of townhouses being built. In my mind, I would like to see a slow down.”
Fedeyko said she didn’t see enough benefits to the proposed development for the motion to win her support. She was joined in opposing the plan by Councillor Morgan Nagel, who said the intense opposition to the development from local residents has proved the development would be a bad idea.
“The community has shown it doesn’t want increased densification in this area,” Nagel said. “I think what is there right now is a better fit.”
Nagel went on to say that it was a failure of the Town to protect the wetland which allowed it to dry up. Nagel argued the Town needs to do a better job of “conserving the wetlands” in the future.
On the other hand, Town administrators, who have recommended council approve the development plan, said the proposed development would allow the Town to move an underground AltaLink electrical line which is needed for the completion of the James Walker Trail.
Councillor Tara McFadden supported the motion that would approve the development plan, but said she understood herself to be a probable lone dissenter. McFadden stated she believed the new proposal before council was “95 per cent there.”
But McFadden wasn’t alone. Mayor Jeff Genung said he didn’t want the motion to approve the plan to be defeated because a "No" vote would leave Town administration without any direction going forward.
One Town official told council that by defeating the bylaw, administration would be put in a place that would not allow them to bring a new motion forward for another six months, delaying the project significantly.
Instead of voting down the proposed development, Fedeyko put forward a motion that directed administration to bring the developer back before council to answer more questions about the proposed development plan. That motion was carried unanimously.
“If this improves on the current state [of the proposal]...I hope we can find some middle ground that protects the wetland,” Genung said before ultimately voting for the motion.
