Somya Lohia, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Shootin' the Breeze

Crowsnest Pass municipal council has deferred second and third readings of Bylaw 1221, 2025 for two weeks to gather more information following significant public concern.

The bylaw, tabled during the March 11 council meeting after a public hearing, proposes redesignating multiple parcels in Bellevue and Coleman from recreation and open space (RO1) and non-urban area (NUA1) to high-density residential (R3).

If approved, the rezoning would allow for the development of apartment buildings up to three storeys high.

The proposed developments include two parcels in Bellevue, located southeast of the MDM Community Centre, and a third parcel in Coleman, situated east of the existing manufactured home community.

The developer has a conditional purchase agreement with the municipality for these lands, which were assessed as vacant, unserviced residential lots. While the Bellevue site has undergone further analysis and is within a designated growth area, the Coleman parcel still requires a conceptual site plan.

As part of the development process, historical resource clearances will be required for all three locations, and the Coleman site must comply with environmental recommendations due to its proximity to a former industrial site.

Public hearing

The proposed bylaw received 38 written submissions from residents opposing it or raising concerns. Additionally, many community members attended the public hearing to voice their objections.

During the public hearing, several residents expressed strong concerns about the proposed rezoning of land in Bellevue and Coleman. The main issues highlighted included traffic congestion, lack of adequate planning, the impact on property values, and the cultural and environmental significance of the Bellevue site.

Aerial map of land parcel considered to be redisgnate under bylaw 1221, 2025

Darren Stanley, a Bellevue resident, shared his worries about the increased traffic that would result from the proposed high-density development.

“I am torn between this, because I know we need housing, but if you look all around where you guys want to put this, there’s holes there. Why couldn’t you guys have put lots there and build homes, have the developer build homes instead of apartment buildings?” he asked.

Stanley said the traffic would be overwhelming, especially with the addition of up to 200 vehicles of around 100 housing units proposed on the lands.

Amy Rienzo, speaking on behalf of Teri Harrison, raised concerns about the rezoning of the Bellevue site, which she described as a significant cultural location for the Blackfoot people.

“Rezoning a known Blackfoot archeological site in Bellevue for high-density development by the municipality of the Crowsnest Pass is not just a matter of land use, it is a profound act of cultural disregard,” she said.

“This site was once a winter camp, a place of survival, tradition and ceremony for the Blackfoot people. Disturbing it for urban expansion would erase a tangible link to Indigenous history,” Rienzo said, calling on the municipality to prioritize cultural preservation and reconciliation over development.

Brian Gallant expressed frustration with the lack of detailed planning associated with the development. He argued that proper planning and consultation were necessary, especially given the potential for significant changes in the neighbourhood.

“There is no area structure plan for Bellevue, no detailed infrastructure plan, no traffic study. These planning issues have not been addressed, and once rezoned, residents lose the ability to have a meaningful say,” Gallant said.

He also said the development could drastically change the character of the neighbourhood, making it less pedestrian-friendly and more dangerous for residents.

Vern Harrison also strongly opposed the R-3 rezoning, citing concerns about transparency, infrastructure and First Nations heritage.

Harrison was particularly frustrated with the lack of public engagement and access to information.

“I found out about this bylaw on Feb. 10. There’s been very little information shared on such a drastic potential change to our neighbourhood,” he said.

Harrison questioned the hurry in rezoning the land parcels: “Why is this rezoning being so rushed? In any other jurisdiction, there would have been public information sessions as part of the process. Why not here?”

He urged the council to vote against the rezoning, warning, “Please do not download the potential huge costs and likely legal actions against the municipality.”

Greg Beekman, one of the developers behind the proposed project, spoke at the public hearing with a detailed explanation of their plans and the steps taken to address concerns raised by the community.

He emphasized the commitment to long-term involvement in the area, stating, “We know the need here. And we were very excited to come into this town. Still are.”

He acknowledged there were valid concerns, but reassured the community that many issues, particularly related to infrastructure, were already being addressed.

“As far as the water and the sewer and the roads go, we have hired a group of civil engineers. They are currently working on that,” he explained.

Beekman said the development was in its early stages, with significant investments already made: “We’ve already invested a little over $40,000 into this land.”

He noted that the approval process required to proceed with the project was still ongoing and that further investment would be made only if the project received the necessary approvals.

Beekman highlighted the accessibility of the chosen site, describing it as “unique,” and explained that utilizing both sides of the road would avoid additional costs.

He further offered flexibility on building height, stating, “We can drop those down to two-storey heights.”

Beekman concluded his statement by reinforcing his commitment to the community, saying, “We want to invest in this community. We want it to be beautiful. We want it to be great for everyone.”

Council discussion

Following the public hearing, council members deliberated on the proposed bylaw and the concerns raised by residents.

Coun. Lisa Sygutek expressed her support for needed housing in the community but emphasized the importance of ensuring that development fits with the surrounding area.

Sygutek highlighted the concerns raised about the proposed high-density development, particularly its proximity to low-density areas. She suggested that the area be rezoned to a mix of R1 and R2 to provide a gradual transition toward higher-density zoning.

“I think this is an incredibly good compromise,” she said, proposing that the east portion of the development be R1 or R2, while reserving the R3 zoning for the back portion.

“We don’t have to accept everything that comes forward,” she said.

Sygutek called for a balanced approach that would address housing needs while respecting the character of the existing community.

Coun. Glen Girhiny stressed the urgent need for multiresidential growth in the community, citing previous decisions that had hindered progress in infrastructure and development. However, Girhiny also expressed concerns about the lack of sufficient information to move forward with the current proposal.

“I do not feel that I have sufficient information to pass this,” he said, suggesting the decision be tabled to allow for further exploration of the proposal’s costs, which he noted could run into the millions.

Coun. Dave Filipuzzi addressed the concerns raised by the public and noted that while some feared high density, traffic, noise and obstructed views, these issues would persist whether the property was zoned R1 or R3. The only way to avoid these impacts entirely, he said, would be to leave the property undeveloped.

Filipuzzi further discussed the difficulty of finding alternative development areas within the community. He noted that much of the available land is privately owned and not easily serviceable at a low cost, making such options unfeasible.

He also addressed the possibility of compromising with the developer, suggesting that perhaps two-storey apartments could be constructed on the east side, with taller buildings farther along the site.

He stressed that while the community needs growth for long-term sustainability, any development will inevitably affect the existing residents.

Following the hearing, council members deliberated on the concerns raised and ultimately voted to delay the decision, opting to revisit the issue in two weeks with more information.

They directed administration to return with firm cost estimates for the necessary infrastructure upgrades as well as the required sewer line upgrades. They also emphasized the need to have a clearer understanding of these costs to facilitate a more informed decision-making process.

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---