Crowsnest Pass municipal council is facing growing public concerns over transparency and development following the recent introduction of land use amendment bylaws. While council maintains that the by ...
More ...
Crowsnest Pass municipal council is facing growing public concerns over transparency and development following the recent introduction of land use amendment bylaws. While council maintains that the bylaws align with provincial mandates and public needs, some residents worry about the impact on the community and the environment.
One bylaw drawing significant opposition is Bylaw 1221-2025, which proposes redesignating multiple parcels in Bellevue and Coleman from recreation and open space (RO1) and non-urban area (NUA1) to high-density residential (R3).
Mayor Blair Painter defended the bylaw, emphasizing the need for more housing in the area.
“When it comes to housing, we are housing-negative. We do not have rental accommodations in our community,” Painter told Shootin’ the Breeze.
He pointed to a development underway in Blairmore, expected to employ 220 to 250 people, and asked: “Where are they going to live? Maybe some people can afford high-value homes, but the majority of them are looking for rental accommodations, which we do not have.”
Some residents, however, oppose the rezoning and development plans, citing concerns like overcrowding, inadequate parking spots, and potential effects on wildlife corridors and archeological sites.
Brian Gallant, a Bellevue resident and vocal opponent of the land rezoning, raised concerns about the planning process and the lack of clear infrastructure support for the proposed high-density residential development.
“There’s no plan. They keep pointing back to the municipal development plan and saying the density numbers are fine, but the plan talks about easing into higher density and placing it in more suitable areas,” Gallant argued.
“It doesn’t say anything about cramming it into the middle of existing neighbourhoods. That’s not good planning,” he told Shootin’ the Breeze.
He also highlighted concerns about the impact on traffic, parking and safety in the area.
Gallant said that while the municipality claims the infrastructure is adequate, they have now fast-tracked projects to revamp sewer and water lines to support the development.
“They’re making it up as they go along,” he said.
“There’s been no traffic study to understand how 300-plus new residents will affect our roads. And there aren’t even sidewalks in many areas — people walk on the roadways, so it’s a major safety concern.”
Gallant further questioned the adequacy of parking in the development.
“There will be overflow parking. Anyone with multiple vehicles or trailers will park on the street, taking up space in front of our homes,” he said, emphasizing that the community is a low-density residential area designed for single-family homes.
Gallant also raised concerns about the proximity of the proposed development to an archeological site.
“There’s a sign here that says ‘Archeological Site, No Entrance,’ ” he noted.
In response to these concerns, Painter defended the need for the rezoning.
“We need high-density housing,” he said. “We have direction from both the federal government and the provincial government to concentrate on high-density housing.”
He stressed the demand for housing given the rising number of immigrants.
“We have hundreds of thousands of people moving to Alberta. People are moving to our community. They want to live in our community and they are looking for accommodations,” he said.
“That’s why we need to build in our province, to accommodate all these people coming in. We have to put these people somewhere.”
Gallant further argued that the process lacked genuine public engagement and transparency, questioning how the proposal got to this stage with minimal input from residents.
He criticized the limited information shared with the public, and said residents didn’t fully understand the scale of the development until the first reading in February. He also said that only a few people received the notification letter, and that the public hearing did not allow for open discussion about the development itself.
The process seemed disingenuous, Gallant said, especially since the rezoning was directly tied to the development. He also said it was unfair that developers were allowed to speak as if they were residents at the public hearing, while the affected residents only had five minutes to present their concerns.
Gallant called for a more transparent process for future redevelopments, suggesting that municipalities engage the public more effectively before land is rezoned or sold.
Painter said the municipality strictly follows the guidelines set by the province through Municipal Affairs, ensuring transparency throughout the process.
“There are definitely strict guidelines that we must follow. And we follow every single one,” he said.
Painter clarified that while public hearings allow residents to express concerns, the focus of a rezoning bylaw is strictly on land use changes, not on specific development plans.
“This is a rezoning bylaw only, not a development bylaw,” he said.
He said residents can be assured that concerns raised during the public hearings will be considered during the development process, if the rezoning passes.
Addressing opposition, Painter acknowledged the community’s limited space for development in a mountain valley that doesn’t have the vast amount of buildable area like prairie communities do.
“So, being as we’re restricted to a very narrow corridor, we have to utilize all the space that we have.”
He also expressed frustration with opposition to development, pointing out what he considered a contradiction: “We’re hearing from people who want development, but then oppose it when it’s proposed.”
Following the public hearing, two groups of affected residents have raised concerns and are considering legal action.
One group has already written to the municipality through its lawyer, indicating its intention to take legal action.
Another group, which includes Gallant, has consulted with an attorney and is discussing options for judicial review or further legal action if the bylaw proceeds.
“This is not what we want,” Gallant said. “We would like to work with the municipality.”
He appealed to the municipality to talk to the people.
“Talk about how this could go ahead and what kind of development we want in our neighbourhood,” he said. “That is, I think, the sensible way to go, and it would make everyone feel included in the process.”
In response to questions about the possibility of legal challenges, Painter said the municipality follows all the required processes outlined in the Municipal Government Act.
While acknowledging the potential for legal action, he remained confident, adding, “What are they going to do? We follow all the laws. So, I’m not too worried about that. I know we follow every single step, and we go over and above.”
The post Crowsnest council faces backlash over rezoning bylaw appeared first on Shootin' the Breeze.