CANMORE – A previously used employee housing unit on Bow Meadows Crescent was made official after an order from Canmore’s Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.
The board ordered the two-bedroom employee housing unit on property owned by A3K Corporation to be made a legal unit, but will limit it to use by employees per the land use bylaw and it will comply with all building and safety codes.
The polarizing topic of housing in a light industrial area of Canmore returned to SDAB Dec. 14, with the quasi-judicial board ruling to legalize the existing unit at 130 Bow Meadows Cres. used to house employees after the Town’s planning department denied it.
In a one-hour hearing, the Town and landowner outlined reasons for restricting or continuing with the employee housing unit, further highlighting the contentious nature of such land uses in the community.
Derek Johnson, the owner of the building and head of A3K Corporation, told the board the intent was to legalize an existing unit due to the ongoing housing issues in the community.
“This enables them an opportunity to get in, get secure in their jobs and have time to find appropriate accommodation elsewhere,” he said.
“All my intent was to legalize something that was already there. We’re not taking away from existing space that was utilized for industrial purposes – second-floor space is not ideal for industrial use and it’s very difficult to lease for industrial use – basically, it’s trying to best utilize the space for where the needs are.”
Johnson added that tenancy is tied to having a place of employment, but if they were to leave their job, they would have a grace period to find a new place to live.
Amanda Winston, an owner and founder of Take A Hike Market which opened in 2022, highlighted the business has two employees living in the unit, which has become necessary for their business to operate.
“Finding stability with and for employees is very difficult in the Bow Valley,” she said. “Affordable housing is quite tricky and we have two employees currently in this staff accommodation.”
Winston said they had an employee living out of their car, who was struggling to find stable housing that the unit eventually provided. She said with the majority of the market’s food being made from scratch, it was important to find skilled workers and housing was needed to provide a stable place to live.
“You’re not necessarily helping businesses, but you’re helping people. You’re helping people who want to be here,” she said.
In a presentation by Town staff, senior development planner Harry Shnider outlined ways the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and land use bylaw intended to protect industrial use. While noting the MDP has an aspect where residential can be considered in an industrial area, there are multiple aspects in the guiding documents to allow it to happen.
He outlined a four-part test of residential being limited to housing employees, impacts on industrial use, residential uses not displacing or inhibiting existing or future industrial uses and residential uses being subordinate to industrial use.
“If the board is counting up what administration is thinking on this policy, one out of four doesn’t mean it’s passed the test. It’s failed the test the MDP has set out,” he said. “You have to look at all four policies written at once in order to consider MDP compliance.”
Shnider further highlighted the Indian Flats area structure plan (ASP) – which is the statutory plan for the area – prioritizes industrial use and doesn’t consider housing to be in the area, but the Town’s land use bylaw provides a framework for the development authority to give discretionary use.
“This is not a residential area. This is not a commercial area. This is an industrial area and livability doesn’t necessarily equal the opportunity to live somewhere. We do want people to live in appropriate places surrounded by things they can use on a daily basis.”
Shnider noted the Town wasn’t aware the space was already being used for housing until after it was denied, which raised further the need to inspect the unit for safety code compliance. However, Johnson said when he made the application he was informed it would be denied and it was better to raise such information at SDAB.
The proposal has 178 square metres of space set aside for a two-bedroom employee housing unit on property owned by A3K Corporation. The site has two ground-floor tenants, with five industrial bays facing the parking lot, according to the report.
The appeal submitted by McElhanney noted employee housing was a discretionary use above the ground floor in the district. It aligns with the MDP, land use bylaw, the Indian Flats ASP and council’s strategic plan.
“There is a well-known issue in Canmore of both available space for business employment and for employee housing,” according to the McElhanney report.
Jill Hofer, a senior planner with McElhanney and the representative for the landowner, showed amenities such as public transit, daycare, groceries, hiking, restaurants and a dog park less than a 10-minute walk from the property.
She added the Indian Flats ASP provided a range of lots to “accommodate diversified, clean, light industrial land uses, which are sensitive to the surrounding environment,” and the policies such as the MDP, land use bylaw and Canmore Economic Strategy allow for residential use in the area.
Hofer further highlighted the area doesn’t allow noxious odours or anything that would be a fire or explosive risk.
She said it was believed the unit had people live in it since the building was finished in 2000, with no known complaints being made.
The application was submitted June 6, deemed complete on June 30 and led to Town staff denying the project Oct. 30.
Among the reasons for denial were Town staff believing the employee housing unit didn’t align with the general industrial district meaning it contravenes the land use bylaw and Town staff not having the ability to enforce employee housing in the area under the land use bylaw and MDP.
The denial also listed employee housing as not a reasonable use for the space that’s meant for commercial and industrial use and that it would constrain existing or future commercial and industrial use.
In the coming months, Town staff will return to council to amend the MDP and land use bylaw to discourage employee housing in industrial areas of the municipality.
The council direction came after a September decision in a narrow 4-3 council vote. It came after significant community discussion about the pros and cons of such use, with a retail gap analysis and light industrial and commercial land review study emphasizing the need to protect light industrial land base from switching to residential use.
When it returns to council, a public hearing will also be required prior to going to second or third reading.
Employee housing has been a central topic in Canmore’s ongoing housing crisis, with multiple employee housing projects in light industrial areas of the community being denied by the planning department. In subsequent hearings at SDAB, multiple employee housing-related projects have got the green light, while one has been denied.
Two of council’s four goals in its strategic plan were creating housing and addressing affordability.
A highly charged SDAB meeting last May had 16 businesses speak in favour of employee housing at 100 Alpine Meadows. The project, which proposed 12 second-floor units that would’ve added 34 bedrooms was denied by SDAB.
The board, however, approved two one-bedroom employee housing units at 127 Bow Meadows Cres. on the second floor last March.
The Canmore Planning Commission approved 12 employee housing units at 121 Bow Meadows Cres. in 2022 and it later approved an increase to 15 employee housing units last summer.
At its Nov. 29 meeting, CPC approved an expansion of a previously-approved employee housing in light industrial at 1 Industrial Place. The project increased from 26 to 43 employee housing units.
The land use bylaw also permits visitor accommodation units to be turned into employee housing for up to five years.
Past reasons for denying employee housing in light industrial areas of Canmore are that it lacks amenities, noise associated with businesses, lack of sidewalks and connectivity, distance from garbage and the loss of potential space for industrial and commercial use.
Neal LaMontagne, an associate lecturer and undergraduate program advisor for the University of Alberta’s School of Urban and Regional Planning, told the Outlook last August industrial space is typically not a good avenue for residential use.
He said industrial space is often protected from becoming residential due to land costs and higher paying jobs it can create in establishing a more diverse economy.
“You want industrial (land) to be affordable and you want the jobs as much as you want the housing,” he said. “You want a diverse economy and not just a resort economy. It makes sense to be at least cautious and protective of workspace areas such as industrial.”
A letter from Steve Ashton, president and CEO of Ashton Construction Services Inc., stated his support for the project, particularly with the ongoing housing crisis in the community.
“Once the Palliser housing complexes are built in a few years and more inventory comes online, hopefully, there will be enough housing for everyone. But until then, we need to look at all solutions to support our economy. This is much better than having the second floor of this development sit empty, which it might if it all remains light industrial.”
The Town will also see an influx of industrial and commercial space established in the coming years. The Gateway at Three Sisters has been under development since it was approved in late 2021. The project, however, had faced numerous delays in planning matters and approvals.
The Palliser Trail ASP was approved in November and proposes upwards of 1,300 homes, including 1,000 affordable housing units. The Smith Creek and Three Sisters Village ASPs were adopted by council in October and are expected to bring between 4,000-7,150 residential units, which would see a minimum of 10 per cent be affordable.
The ASPs would also include a commercial district between three and five hectares and an innovation district of two to five hectares.
Caveats and restrictive covenants have often been seen as a potential way to mitigate employee housing being used for other means such as tourist homes. The ability to enforce, however, can be difficult since neither is binding unless the Town is involved, which can be onerous given a municipality has limited abilities when it comes to private property.
Johnson told the board he would be willing to apply a restrictive covenant on the land title, but also submit any tenancy agreements to the Town.
Shnider noted the Town would have difficulty in enforcing restrictive covenants and there’s “very little the Town can do to monitor it on an ongoing basis other than receiving a development application.”
The Town’s manager of planning and development Lauren Miller told the board while historically the Town has used restrictive covenants to try and protect zoning uses, Canmore’s growth has led to concerns about the ability to enforce.
“It has become apparent it’s not the most effective legal instrument to address some of the concerns we’ve received, so administratively we are looking at that section [of the MDP] and exploring what exactly is the best legal instrument because the one we have been relying on historical has proven to be cumbersome and almost ineffective in our ability to enforce,” she said.
