Is Cochrane going to be able to keeps its 2013 promise to not annex any additional land from Rocky View County for the next 50 years?
And, if it does, what would Cochrane look like in the year 2063, when the population is projected to hit 65,000?
In 2005, the Town of Cochrane annexed 1,335 hectares (3,299 acres) of land from the county, as its population had grown by nearly 59 per cent from 1996 to 2001. Since 2006, the town’s population has swelled by 6,948, and, according the last municipal census, Cochrane has grown by nearly 3,000 in the last year alone.
Based on the development of high-density housing (a plan championed by the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) and its Calgary Metropolitan Plan) it was determined by Cochrane’s previous council that it would not have to annex any more land for 50 years, bringing us to the year 2063.
This may very well be true. After all, if our town is going to continue growing at its current pace, then there needs to be plenty of available housing…diverse housing…something presently lacking in the rental market.
But has the recent backlash over the destruction of some of Cochrane’s wetlands – for the purpose of high-density housing developments – put a monkey-wrench in the no-annexation goal?
It seems to be common sense that you can’t have it both ways – you can’t protect every wetland in Cochrane (of which there are over 200), while at the same time develop the type of compact communities that would meet the high-density requirements set forth by the CRP.
A year ago, Cochrane’s council was presented with a draft of the town’s Wetland Conservation Policy, a plan that would be a guideline as to which wetlands would be preserved, and which would be destroyed for the purpose of development.
The plan would also aim for ‘no net loss’ of wetlands, meaning when a lower class wetland was destroyed, it would be recreated by the developer in an alternative location.
The idea of ‘no net loss’ is of course a loose concept, as man-made wetlands are not of the same value and do not function the same way natural wetlands do.
At the time, former mayor Truper McBride said he was ‘not totally sold’ on the direction the plan was heading. The plan drew a line at what class of wetland would be preserved and which would not; the line being at Class 3, where any wetland categorized there or under would be written off, and any above (Class 4 and up) maintained – some Class 3s would be preserved depending on the assessment at the time.
The City of Calgary also drew a line at Class 3 wetlands, and the Town of Cochrane aimed to fall in line with its guidelines.
But if we were to protect every wetland – an amazing feet if it could be possible, and certainly what everyone would want in a perfect world – would we be able to accommodate 65,000 people within the town’s current boundaries and still build a variety of housing types to meet the wants and needs of potential residents?
What about the town’s Open Spaces Master Plan? Would we be able to maintain the highly desirable open green spaces for each community?
What about services for those outlying communities, like gas stations and even the potential for another grocery store so that residents of areas like Fireside and River Heights had more convenient access to their daily needs?
Some of the most desirable neighbourhoods in Cochrane are some of the oldest (sometimes referred to as ‘established’) – Glenbow, the East End, Riverview and West Valley – communities that boast larger yard space, greater distances between homes and close proximity to existing services.
So, considering the many challenges the Cochrane landscape presents to development (rolling hills, rivers, railway tracks, outlying ranches, roads, wetlands) it seems like, aside from closing our doors altogether, there will inevitably be a choice to make: spread out, or say goodbye to some more wetlands.
