Seebe Project Gets Second Reading

Canmore Leader Article

By Aaron Paton, Canmore Leader staff
Published: Wednesday June 13, 2007

A proposed development at Seebe is one step closer to final approval.

MD of Bighorn council on Tuesday unanimously passed second reading of the Horseshoe Lands area structure plan. If the development passes third and final reading, a town of more than 5,000 people will be built on the banks of the Bow River.

Bighorn Reeve Dene Cooper said council challenged the developer, Moondance Land Company, to resolve a list of 27 concerns council said the developer must address prior to final approval.

The first concern on that list refers to environmental studies ordered by the developer prior to first reading that MD biologists called "confusing," "unclear" and "not evidence based" in a peer review report released to the public in March.

"The environmental studies need to be completed based on the recommendations of Bighorn's consultants," the list of suggested amendments reads. "The draft ASP needs to be amended based on the environmental studies and impact assessment document."

The top seven concerns identified by council, based on information gathered at three public hearings, also relate to water, sewage treatment, access through Stoney-Nakoda land, fiscal viability, commercial/industrial land mix and concept plan approvals.

(See below for complete list of "major" concerns).

Cooper said council has sent a message by passing second reading.

"The message is that we have come a short way and we have a long way to go," Cooper said. "(There were) twenty-seven items we discussed in detail to the point of common understanding."

Critics of the proposed development said a provincially regulated Environmental Impact Assessment should have been conducted before the development moved beyond first reading.

Cooper said all 27 concerns are important and must be resolved but added that council would not bend on environmental issues identified by Wildlife & Company owner, wildlife biologist Garry Hornbeck in his peer review report.

"What (Moondance Land Company) needs to do is satisfy the requirements set forth by (MD of Bighorn) environmental experts," Cooper said. "Mr. Hornbeck, Ms. (Jane) Lancaster and Mr. (Kerry) Brewin have outlined the conditions that satisfy the MD -- and they will be satisfied."

The list of concerns came after "three long days" of deliberation and "due consideration" by council, according to Cooper. He said that councilors were not unanimous on each one of the 27 points, but the reeve and council considered the environmental report top priority.

Horseshoe Lands manager of public relations John Third said Moondance will begin working with MD administration on a new proposal that could be presented to council as early as September.

"What second reading does is it allows the developer to work with administration in crossing the T's and dotting the I's and making these amendments," Third said.

He said council did not make suggestions that Moondance had not anticipated.

"When I read through both the short list and the long list of suggested requirements, I thought that they were all doable," Third said.

A water source for the Horseshoe Lands development must be proven and demonstrated, according to the list of concerns. Third said revisions to the environmental review and water woes will be addressed over the next eight weeks.

"On the environmental side...if you have 100 people living on there you'd obviously have (a vast) difference in the environmental footprint than if you have 5,000 people living there," Third said. "(Moondance) is very optimistic about the development now that it has passed second reading. We're now back in dialogue with the MD and we can incorporate various aspects of the public input into the area structure plan."

He added that an ASP is a living document that can be modified as the development moves forward.

"The MD wouldn't have put a provision in the Municipal Development Plan for these lands to have extensive development if it wasn't something the municipality would like to see," Third said.

He said developers are subject to a lot of scrutiny today regarding water, green space, building technologies and environmental concerns.

"We can deal with the scope of work and come up with amendments that should make council comfortable that we have the integrity and we are committed to do what's in the document."


7 Major items to be addressed by developer:
1) Environmental studies must be completed based on recommendations of the MD's environmental consultants. Environmental impact assessment document should be finalized and take into account public input. The draft ASP needs to be amended based on environmental studies and impact assessment document.

2) Water source must be identified and proven.

3) Permit for sewage treatment system must be provided before concept plan approval, using best demonstrated technology.

4) Access road from Highway 1 must be owned by the province of Alberta, not simply a road permitted by the Stoney-Nakoda Nation.

5) Better demonstrate the fiscal viability of the project from a municipal perspective.

6) Commitment in revised ASP that the commercial and industrial land be developed in proportion to the residential land.

7) Concept plan approvals will be required prior to any subdivision or development proceeding within the ASP area.

A complete list of suggested amendments can be obtained by calling the MD of Bighorn at 673-3611.