Dear Editor,
Last week the subdivision and development appeal board of the Town of Okotoks rejected an appeal by concerned neighbourhood citizens for a 32-unit residential development located at 103 McRae Street.
Our primary reason for the appeal was the number and extent of variances that were granted by the Town in approving the development permit. The scale of these variances is far greater than the discretion normally allowed to planners in other jurisdictions.
By granting these variances, the Town has approved a development that differs substantively from the building type, scale and character of development allowed under the R-MD zoning. Zoning provides certainty to neighbouring residents regarding the type of development that will be permitted in their community.
Residents expect the rules of zoning be adhered to.
If a developer is proposing a development that varies as extensively from the current zoning as the proposed development does, a re-zoning application should be submitted.
The re-zoning application would then go through the proper channels of community consultation, a public hearing and decision by council. In this case, the Town bypassed these proper channels.
The proposal for three times the number of units allowed under the land-use bylaw was approved by simply allowing massive variances.
Unfortunately, the appeal board has upheld the Town’s decision and rejected our appeal. Our written appeal submission was signed by over 100 people and was orally supported by 13 neighbourhood residents at the board presentation.
No one who actually lives in the neighbourhood was opposed to our appeal. In their decision, the board used vague, high-level policies from the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan and the Calgary Metropolitan to lamely justify a development that most certainly was not anticipated in the Town’s more detailed plans and bylaws. We recognize the Town must make efficient use of land and attempt to intensify existing developed areas.
However, the Municipal Development Plan clearly states that these goals must be achieved within a context of innovative housing, site and neighbourhood design that is sustainable and has strong aesthetic merit.
Neighbourhood context has to be considered even when the neighbourhood is evolving. In our opinion, the proposed development fails in this regard and flies in the face of the wishes of the neighbourhood.
Council, by allowing its planning department to have such broad discretion to vary its own plans, is abdicating its responsibility to the community that elected them.
Gordon White
Okotoks
