A controversial development on the south end of Okotoks may not take root.
Wind Walk, located on the south side of Highway 7 at Secondary Highway 783, was a high-density development originally proposed within Foothills County in May 2008, led by reality TV personality Mike Holmes.
The 145 acres were annexed into the Town of Okotoks as part of the 2017 annexation from Foothills County, and the area structure plan for Wind Walk was revised with urban density levels and approved on June 26, 2017.
Four years later, the Town has given second reading to two bylaws: Bylaw 19-21, which would redesignate the land-use for the site and Bylaw 20-21, which would rescind the Wind Walk area structure plan.
“There have been delays in development of the area that suggest a need to re-evaluate growth trends and benefits,” said Colin Gainer, senior planner for the Town.
In August 2017, the first phase of Wind Walk was approved by council and water was earmarked for the development. In February 2019 the tentative plan for subdivision of the first phase was approved.
However, the subdivision plan approval came with conditions, including the completion of a servicing agreement for the site and providing engineering drawings, which were never done. The Town granted an extension to Sept. 30, 2020 to have the agreement done with a second extension of six months.
“That servicing agreement was never executed,” said Elaine Vincent, CAO for the Town of Okotoks.
She said the water allocation policy that had been in place when Wind Walk was approved stated when land-use was granted the water allocation was to be done at the same time, to ensure water was set aside for any new development.
The two extensions to the timeline were granted to provide more time to get servicing and water allocation agreements in place with Alberta Foothills Properties Ltd., which was the developer of the site.
A new Municipal Development Plan and land-use bylaw, as well as an updated water allocation policy, drove the Town to re-evaluate the Wind Walk project.
Vincent said the Town was in a position where the development was not proceeding, and water was tied up.
“We never actually entered into that servicing agreement and therefore the water allocation was kind of stuck there,” she said. “That was the challenge we were faced with.”
The Wind Walk lands have recently fallen into receivership, and concerns about the proposed bylaws were raised by receiver FTI Consulting Canada and lender Alberta Treasury Branch.
Scott Exner, counsel for FTI Consulting, said the Town should maintain the status quo so as not to impact the sale of the land.
“There are both secured and unsecured creditors that would be impacted by the change to the property,” he said. “Changing the land-use designation and a repeal of the area structure plan causes uncertainty of the sale process and the value of land.”
He further questioned the timing of the bylaws coming before council, as they appear to have come to the table in mid-June, around the same time FTI Consulting was made the court-appointed receiver.
Travis Lysak, legal counsel for ATB, expressed the same concern, noting the bank has advanced nearly $14 million toward Wind Walk.
“The security the bank holds and the way the bank is hoping to be repaid its money, ultimately, is through the value of the lands,” said Lysak. “There is a very great concern this is going to diminish the value of the lands.”
Both companies requested the Town hold off on passing the bylaws until a buyer for the land can be secured, and could potentially enter into talks with the municipality.
Drew Atkins, who has been involved in the Wind Walk project since its inception and originally purchased the land, also raised concern. He said he’d been working for the past two years to put together a management group that could buy the project out of receivership.
“We were working on the assumption that legally passed subdivision approval and area structure plan meant something, including acting in good faith related to every contact, every pact with Okotoks despite the recent problems we’ve had,” said Atkins.
He added he was confused by the fact Town council met with lawyers in camera to discuss the lands and delays in development.
“I don’t understand the sneakiness of doing it in camera without notice,” said Atkins, adding he had never received notification the proposed bylaws were up for consideration.
Vincent said council acted within the parameters of the Municipal Government Act, which states before second reading of a bylaw a public hearing must be advertised and held, and that no decisions may be made in camera.
“We’re actually prohibited from passing resolutions in a closed meeting of council,” said Vincent. “Anything legal or land that is discussed in camera that requires action must be done in an open and transparent way.
“I can confirm that was done in this case.”
As far as the bylaws impacting the value of the land, she said those risks are understood by the Town.
However, with agreements not being executed after extensions were given, she said there is only so long the municipality can wait on the development.
“We believe we have been fair and patient long enough,” said Vincent.
Council opted to grant second reading to both bylaws and postpone third reading to receive more information on the receivership process and whether its actions would violate that procedure.
“We’re in this unique situation in terms of the receivership that’s there, and I know for myself I’m a little unclear on the legal pieces of that,” said Coun. Tanya Thorn. “I would like some more information brought back to council before I make a final decision.”
