Council approves two rezonings after public debate

Local Journalism Initiative

Public hearings raise concerns about terrain studies and early access to planning information

Crowsnest Pass council approved two land use by-law amendments on Feb. 10 after public hearings that included both support for new development and concerns about steep terrain, studies and how residents participate in planning decisions.

The first public hearing focused on Bylaw 1249 2025, which administration described as a rezoning north of Blairmore that would re-designate part of a parcel from public to support a cemetery boundary and re-designate another portion to non-urban tourism accommodation recreation.

Stefan Amundsen, who identified himself as the owner of neighbouring land in Blairmore, spoke in support and described an existing tourism operation near the cemeteries.

“We currently host 45 RVs, another 50 micro cabins, charmed resorts, and some tiny homes on this, and we’re kind of at capacity,” Amundsen said. He told council the goal was to add “another 40 to 50 sites.”

Amundsen also described planned amenities and said, “This year we’re opening up a full Nordic Spa, the first one in the Crowsnest Pass.”

Mindy Pawluk told council she was not opposed to development but opposed the rezoning due to what she described as missing information about the land’s suitability.

“I feel there’s a lack of information,” Pawluk said, adding that studies such as “a slope stability study,” “a geotechnical,” and “an environmental or a wildlife assessment” should be available earlier.

During debate on second and third reading, councillors returned to the question of what information is available at the zoning stage.

Councillor Doreen Johnson said council did not have enough technical information in front of it.

“I would like to recognize the fact that there’s been questions brought up about the suitability of the zoning and what we’ve got in front of us is slightly deficient in giving us adequate grounds for a decision,” Johnson said. She asked, “Is there like a geological report available to us?”

Chief administrative officer Patrick Thomas said those reports come later.

“So those reports come forward to support development permit applications. So no, there’s not a report available,” Thomas said.

Councillor Dean Ward supported the rezoning and argued council was focused on zoning, not the later permitting stage.

“Often council gets the development permit process mixed in with the zoning process, we’re only talking about zoning tonight,” Ward said. Ward also pointed to tourism and tax base impacts, saying, “This will increase our tax base for a piece of land that was doing nothing for the community.”

Councillor Darren Nastasi said he supported the by-law but urged better upfront information and attention to runoff and wildlife.

“I am concerned with making sure that it’s done properly, proper runoff,” Nastasi said, adding, “we need to do a little bit better job of getting information ahead of time on some of this stuff.”

Council passed Bylaw 1249 2025 with second and third readings.

Council then held a public hearing on Bylaw 1251 2025, rezoning a parcel in East Coleman across from the high school from drive in commercial to medium density residential.

Pawluk spoke again and said she supported the rezoning.

“I actually am in support of this land use rezoning,” she said, adding that earlier information could have eased an adjacent landowner’s concerns about “erosion control and water storm runoff.”

Kyle Werzer, representing the owner and development company, told council the proposal was intended to address housing needs and fit municipal planning documents.

Werzer said the site was “just over 4 acres in total” and described a concept of one to three storey units with attached garages.

Councillor Johnson said she supported the project but highlighted light pollution concerns due to the site’s proximity to Highway 3.

“I would like to see total sensitivity about light pollution,” Johnson said, adding it is important for “keeping the feel of our community.”

Council approved second and third readings for Bylaw 1251 2025.

Council also defeated a proposed amendment to the Chinook Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board by-law that would have reduced the panel size from five members to three. Rypien said she had been approached by a resident concerned about perceptions of bias.

“If the appeal board is decreased from five to three, does that create more opportunity for subjective views as opposed to objective views when appeals are heard?” Rypien said.

Councillor Tony Vastenhout opposed the change.

“If there’s only three people who get the vote on this, it’s quite easy to sway one person one way and then you got it,” Vastenhout said.

Councillor Colleen Macdonald, who said she sits on the development appeal board, also preferred a larger panel.

“My preference would be to have five members, just so to eliminate the perception of bias,” Macdonald said.

Councillor Ward moved second reading, but the motion was defeated.