Dog With A Bone Society

Cochrane Town Council Requested Not to Approve Municipal Development Plan

by | Mar 9, 2025 | Cochrane

ABSTRACT

For the upcoming Council Meeting on March 10th, according to agenda item 5a, the Cochrane councillors are being asked to give Third Reading to Bylaw 24/2024, Cochrane’s Municipal Development Plan, also entitled Envision Cochrane 2050, “as presented”. An email was sent to the members of Cochrane’s Town Council giving multiple reasons (see Full Blog for letter and reasons) for why they  should refuse Third Reading for Bylaw 24/2024.

This is a critical document which will guide land management in Cochrane for many years to come. For that reason, Council was requested to reject the current version and send it back to the drawing board to be reworked.

FULL BLOG

Text of email, “Say No to Approval of Amended Municipal Development Plan”, sent to members of Cochrane’s Town Council with respect to Third Reading of Bylaw 24/2024, Cochrane’s Municipal Development Plan, also entitled Envision Cochrane 2050, to take place at the March 10th Regular Council Meeting:

Dear members of Town Council,

For the upcoming Cochrane Town Council Meeting on March 10th, according to agenda item 5a, you are being asked to give Third Reading to Bylaw 24/2024, Cochrane’s Municipal Development Plan or Envision Cochrane 2050, “as presented”. For several reasons, as discussed below, I am calling upon the members of Cochrane’s Town Council to adopt Option 2, namely, “That Council refuses Third Reading for Bylaw 24/2024” as presented.

  • Questionable Legitimacy of CMRB’s ‘Approval’ of the Amended MDP Submitted to It

Given the lame duck nature of the CMRB as a result of changes made to the board by Minister McIver back in November, which included the Province no longer providing them an annual $1 million in funding, and making membership voluntary, it made no sense for the town to treat the CMRB as an authority to which it must be subject. With the CMRB about to be disbanded, the Town Administration, nonetheless, sought an approval by the CMRB in order to finalize the approval of Bylaw 24/2024 through third reading by Council.

According to the Town of Cochrane Council Report for agenda item 5a, “The Calgary Metropolitan Regional Board (CMRB) has completed their 2-month review of the EC2050 document and has determined that EC2050 is in alignment with the CMRB Growth Plan.” However, the process whereby this took place is highly questionable.

The Town of Cochrane Council Report for agenda item 5a explained that the amended EC2050 document following Second Reading “was submitted to the CMRB on December 11, 2024, for a 20-day review process. On January 23, 2025, CMRB informed the Project Team that the Board members were recommending the approval of EC2050”.

Subsequent to Council’s second reading of the MDP on December 9, 2024 there have been two meetings of the CMRB, one on December 13, 2024 and a second on February 7, 2025. According to a February 14, 2025 letter (appended to the final page the Town of Cochrane Council Report for agenda item 5a) from the CMRB to Cochrane’s Senior Planner Mark Spence, the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board followed its Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) process in issuing its approval of REF Application 2024-14 for the amended EC2050 document.

Noteworthy to keep in mind the REF Application number for the MDP approval, namely, 2024-14. The agenda for the CMRB meeting held on December 13, 2024 included as agenda item 6, a REF Application 2024-13, but, noteworthy, there was no reference to REF Application 2024-14 for that meeting. At the subsequent meeting that took place on February 7, 2025, REF Application 2024-15 was up for approval by the CMRB. Noteworthy that there is no record of REF Application 2024-14 related to the amended MDP having been addressed by the MRB at a regularly scheduled meeting of the CMRB. Hence the legitimacy of this ‘approval’ of the amended MDP is highly questionable and seems to have been conducted in such an irregular, illegitimate manner to presumably accommodate the wishes of Cochrane’s Administration. This would be tantamount to Cochrane’s Council making an important policy decision through a discussion among themselves without meeting at a formal Council Meeting.

  • Abundant References to the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board or CMRB in the Amended MDP

At its February 7, 2025 meeting, the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board voted unanimously to halt its operations also requested that the requirement for a Regional Evaluation Framework and the Growth Plan be repealed. Therefore, with the CMRB ceasing its operations, the many references (for example, on pages 17, 38, 41, 47, 49, 61, 81, 83, 132, 144, and 152) to the “Calgary Metropolitan Region Board” or “CMRB” in the amended MDP (EC2050) are no longer relevant and should be expunged from the MDP document. Thus, on page 17 one reads that “The Town of Cochrane is a member of the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board, which is nonsensical now that the CMRB has disbanded. Or on page 144, one reads with respect to 5.3.14, the directive to “Ensure Envision Cochrane 2050 and future statutory plans, policies and guidelines align with the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board’s Growth Plan”, where, as per the February 7, 2025 meeting of the CMRB, the latter is to be repealed.

  • With the CMRB’s Growth Plan Having Been Appealed, No Longer Coercion to Make Reference to Climate Change, Fighting Climate Change, and Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the MDP

At the Second Reading to Bylaw 24/2024 at the December 9, 2024 Council Meeting, several councillors, especially Councillor Wilson, expressed concern about the inclusion of reference to climate change in the MDP. When Councillor Wilson voiced a desire to have references to “climate change” be removed in order for him to approve the MDP, he was informed both by Mark Krysinski, the Administration’s Director, Community Growth, and the consultant retained to develop the MDP, that removing such references would jeopardize the approval of the MDP by the CMRB as it was a required to be there in order to be in alignment with the policies of the CMRB’s Growth Plan. Accordingly, Section 3.3.3 (Climate Change) on page 67 of the Growth Plan declares that “The CMRB recognizes the need to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the risks due to Climate Change”, and according to Section 3.3.3.1 of the Growth Plan, we read that it is required that the “Municipal Development Plans shall address Climate Change resiliency, which will include: (a) a commitment to reduce municipal greenhouse gas emissions”.

With the “commitment” in the Growth Plan to address Climate Change, to reduce municipal greenhouse gas emissions, a key tenet of Agenda 2030, it is indisputable that the CMRB had put Cochrane on the road to Agenda 2030.

With the CMRB having folded and its Regional Growth Plan repealed, there is no longer an obligation to include references to climate change and a reduction of municipal greenhouse gas emissions in the MDP.  Without such constraint to include a reference to taking actions on climate change in our MDP, Council now has the freedom to go back and expunge those references from the document.

At this point it is worth mentioning, as per my December 11, 2024 email, “Second Reading Bylaw 24:2024”, to you, that an improper procedure was followed in the approval of the amended MDP during Second Reading on December 9, 2024. Councillor Nagel asked for an amendment to the EC2050 document such that the term “infill” be replaced with “redevelopment” throughout. The next step should have been a vote on adoption of the amendment only to be followed by a motion on the amended bylaw. Instead, a motion was allowed to give Second Reading to Bylaw 24/2024 with the amendment, which was carried 5-1. Doing so blocked Councillor Wilson, for example, from offering up an amendment of his own to remove the reference to climate change in the document. Disappointing that the Administration did not step in to point out the impropriety. Presumably they were excited about getting the MDP approved with limited alteration.

  • “Infill” is Synonymous With “Redevelopment”

Councillor Nagel at the Second Reading to Bylaw 24/2024 at the December 9, 2024 Council Meeting, was strongly opposed to the inclusion of references to “infill” in the MDP.  However, as explained in my December 11, 2024 email, “Second Reading Bylaw 24:2024” to you, the alternative word that he agreed to as a substitute, “redevelopment”, essentially meant the same thing.

That change of wording changes nothing as earlier in response to Councillor Nagel’s concern about the reference to “infill” in the MDP, the consultant Rachelle Dillon described “infill or redevelopment as being an opportunity to increase density”.

Or as Councillor McFadden explained, redevelopment and infill are “primarily…the same thing”. In other words, those two words are interchangeable as far as meaning. No wonder, that Mr. Krysinski and his consultant happily agreed that such a change was acceptable, when the mayor asked for such clarification, thus improperly bringing them into the debate, in order to be satisfied in voting yes for the amendment, thereby serving the Administration’s interests.

With the replacement of the occurrences of “infill” in the MDP, as previously found on pages 38, 41, 42, and 129 of the MDP, thus on page 38 what previously read:

Growth will inevitably occur in all areas of Cochrane. However, Envision Cochrane 2050 prioritizes the gradual intensification of central areas and the completion of planned new communities. A shift to infill and redevelopment will promote the continued protection of valued natural areas and enable strategic investments that enhance the livability and connectivity of Cochrane’s established communities.

becomes the following in the amended version:

Growth will inevitably occur in all areas of Cochrane. However, Envision Cochrane 2050 prioritizes the gradual intensification of central areas and the completion of planned new communities. A shift to redevelopment will promote the continued protection of valued natural areas and enable strategic investments that enhance the livability and connectivity of Cochrane’s established communities.

According to the context, it is clear that these two words are interchangeable as far as meaning. As the word “infill” has a negative connotation for some, such a change in wording also serves to shield this activity from public scrutiny or awareness. Or as Councillor Reed explained, redevelopment was a “much more palatable” term.

Conclusion

This is a critical document which will guide land management in Cochrane for many years to come. In light of the above concerns, I request that Council choose Option 2 at your meeting on March 10, 2025, namely, “That Council refuses Third Reading for Bylaw 24/2024” and, thereby, sends it back to the drawing board to be reworked.