According to some Cranbrook residents and most of those in the affected area, the decision by City Council on 14 March, to give 3rd reading to the Parnaby Rd. lot 5 zoning and OCP amendment, was unpopular. Those folks, including myself, should have known better than attempting to stymie the City Council from encouraging rural high density “cluster-type” property development. This move by the Council reminds one of a determined previous Council a decade ago to push through the development of the ‘Mansions on the east hill” project. That one was barely defeated by the negative Nellies. To compensate for that failure this Council should be congratulated for passing and popularizing this amendment, in spite of the pervading opposition, to promote the “high density cluster” housing concept, and modifying the OCP to allow termination of quiet neighborhoods popular with residents in that area.
If these developments occur they will encourage more road building emanating from Cranbrook center to the high density “clusters” so that eventually Cranbrook will truly be a “hub” city with 8-10 km roads fanning out like spokes on a wheel. This housing pattern will increase traffic, allowing air pollution to be more concentrated in rural areas away from the city center, once residents are squeezed in. The increasing road traffic and noise between the city’s hub and the clusters though the remaining forest will also reduce the obnoxious presence of ever encroaching wildlife and burrowing varmints.
Further, according to Council’s comments, Cranbrook residents need not concern themselves about increased taxes as water, sewer and fire protection will be totally paid for by the developers’ (whoever they are) deep pockets.
The revised Cranbrook and cluster OCP plan will encourage the now ubiquitous and popular urban sprawl and put Cranbrook on the map because: what is open land for, but to develop and occupy it to fulfil our manifest destiny.
Another stated advantage of this “develop clusters and they will come” philosophy is that it will boost and “finish off” the beleaguered Shadow Mountain development. I cannot understand why that development has stalled after many attempts as it was also conceived within the “semi cluster” model” outside of the city’s amenities.
In summary, I encourage the City Council to sit firm on this decision and not be detracted by attempts by those objecting to this inspired model for Cranbrook area’s future development.
Jack Loeppky, Cranbrook
April 7, 2022
To: Cranbrook City Council
Re: Lot 5, Parnaby Road proposal
We are very disappointed in Council’s decision of March 14th, 2022 which passed third reading for the proposed development of Lot 5 along Parnaby Road. More disappointing than the decision itself, was the process – or lack thereof – which produced it. Here’s the thing……
According to the transcript from that meeting, several councillors said they were against that type of “hodge podge” development, but then proceeded to vote in favor of the very same. They provided no explanation for voting contrary to their stated position. What specifically is it about this particular parcel makes you change your mind. ? Either you are for a proposal or you are against it. You seem to want to have it both ways.
Council seems to have completely ignored their own Advisory Planning Commission’s advice against the proposed development. Again, there is no explanation as to why. What does council know that their Advisory Planning Commission does not know?
Also according to the transcript, council separated the letters of concern into those from within the city and those from Area C residents. The transcript states the letters from Area C residents “echoed what all of the neighbours had already said.” Doesn’t that indicate the objections are important to all area residents whether or not they are in the city? Doesn’t that demonstrate that the city boundary is an arbitrary line which doesn’t reflect the nature of the true, total neighbourhood?
We know the city will grow and Lot 5 will be developed. Indeed the neighbours of Lot 5 have made several innovation suggestions on how development could occur and still be in the best interest of the environment, of the city, and of the neighbourhood. It is most disappointing the city has not acknowledged or shown any interest in this type of neighboyrly dialogue.
Legally, perhaps, RDEK residents have no say in city matters. However, what kind of neighborhood exists when community members completely ignore the concerns of their immediate neighbors when so much is shared and so much is at stake? We will all be living with the results of this decision and will remember how it came about.
Thanks for listening, good neighbour.
Pat and Ann Rice