CANMORE – The adoption of two area structure plans by Canmore council brings clarity for the future of the Three Sisters lands.
However, with the Three Sisters Village and Smith Creek area structure plans (ASPs) now adopted, both Three Sisters Mountain Village Properties Limited (TSMVPL) and the Town of Canmore will look to move forward with clarity for the project.
“I believe there is a willingness among various stakeholders to start fresh with regards to how we move forward,” Canmore Mayor Sean Krausert said after the special meeting of council Tuesday (Oct. 24).
“What that looks like, I can’t tell you but it’s going to be step-by-step on how we make sure all of the due process is followed and that there is engagement with the town. Those are things that I’ll be talking to TSMV about.”
He said having conversations between each side will be essential in establishing development that ultimately meets community needs as best as possible.
While development of ASPs has to be aligned with what’s adopted, it’s common for high-level documents to be amended and modified over time, especially when full buildout could take upwards of 30 years.
Ongoing issues that the Town is looking at – such as tourism homes – was one example Krausert gave of discussions being important with TSMVPL.
“As we move through various issues in the town such as tourist homes, we can have a conversation with them about their proposals around tourist homes and find a common ground.”
Potentially complicating the relationship is the continued civil lawsuit launched by TSMVPL against the Town and former and current council members.
The civil lawsuit is $161 million from TSMVPL and $63.5 million from Thunderstone Quarries, who won lands in the Smith Creek ASP.
Krausert said it was difficult to speak to lawsuits due to the ongoing nature, but with council adopting the plans “it significantly reduces the damages [that] have been claimed,” and discussions will be ongoing about them.
Chris Ollenberger, the director of strategy and development for TSMVPL, echoed the importance of having a consistent and open dialogue.
“Implementation is now the key,” he said. “It’s not so much how we got here, but how we implement it well.”
Ollenberger said the legal issues will take time to resolve, particularly with the vote having just taken place Oct. 24, but the next steps will be for both the Town and TSMVPL to sit down and discuss the future.
While members of the community expressed dismay for the plans continuing, Ollenberger said TSMVPL is willing to hear feedback for the ASPs as they move into the next development stages of subdivision and development permits.
“There is going to be continued improvements and discussions and refinements over time and we look forward to having those discussions with any citizen that wants to approach us with their ideas,” he said. “Sometimes it’s difficult because there were times when some citizens just said no and that wasn’t a conversation we could enter into meaningfully.
“In terms of being able to change some aspects of our development, I think that door is always open. Perhaps not to the extent some people may like in terms of area, impacts of costs, but we listen to all ideas to see what we can work with.”
The application for Three Sisters Village ASP first phase has already been submitted to the Town and a meeting between the two sides will soon take place. A similar application for Smith Creek ASP will also be made in the coming weeks.
The next 12-16 months will have the two sides – as well as the province on some issues – working on details for infrastructure and planning. Ollenberger estimated initial construction will start in 2025, which he said will bring housing to the community.
As part of the two ASPs, a minimum of 10 per cent affordable housing will be built. The bonus density tool could have as much as 20 per cent added to the Town’s housing stock.
As opposed to looking back to the past two-and-a-half years of litigation that ended with the Land and Property Rights decision to approve the ASPs and the Court of Appeal upholding it, Ollenberger said the focus should be looking ahead.
“That really doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of moving forward on a conversation level, on building a community – whether it’s a community or neighbourhood – it doesn’t get us forward adding housing supply,” he said of focusing on past issues. “It doesn’t get us forward on employee housing. It doesn’t get us forward on affordable housing, so I believe the Town is looking to do the right thing with respect to housing in a number of different forms.”
He added with the development permit having been submitted for The Gateway at Three Sisters commercial project, the first phase of construction is expected to start in 2024.
TSMVPL has had conversations with grocery stores to be part of the development as well as local businesses, Ollenberger said.
“The commercial tax base the Town is looking for is also dependent on residences to make the business case work,” he said. “It is a synergy and like any relationship we all go through tough times, but now we have to get past that to get to the good times. I suspect it may take a little while, but with a shared vision on the outcomes it can be done.”
The full gallery Oct. 24 was largely evenly split between those in support and those against the ASPs.
When council began adopting the 12 motions associated with the plans, in a rare move during a vote several people in the gallery left council chambers.
Both Couns. Wade Graham and Jeff Mah, who prior to being elected were prominent in the movement against the ASPs, expressed disappointment at the two plans moving ahead.
They both raised issues on improved consultation with the Stoney Nakoda First Nation as well as provincially-led issues in the wildlife corridor and undermining.
Some community members also stated their disappointment with provincial interests in the 1992 Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) decision being placed above Canmore council denying the ASPs in 2021.
However, under the Constitution Act – formerly the British North America Act enacted in 1867 at Canada’s confederation – the system outlines that a municipality is beholden to the province and must follow its legislation.
The NRCB – a provincially created board – and Section 619 of the Municipal Government Act outline if submitted ASPs were in alignment with the 1992 decision the plans would advance.
Three councillors – Couns. Karen Marra, Jeff Hilstad and Joanna McCallum – abstained from voting, citing being named in the ongoing civil lawsuit brought forward by TSMVPL.
Krausert highlighted how polarizing the ASPs have been in the community for several years.
“After time, I hope we can all adjust to looking forward and turning our attention to how these ASPs that have been approved into the best thing for Canmore – whether it’s the building types, the zoning, the monitoring of wildlife corridors, the management of human use – all of those things lie ahead of us,” he said. “I think there’s going to be some great benefits to Canmore, but of course, it’s going to take some time and today was a difficult day given the varying emotions.”
Coun. Tanya Foubert echoed Krausert’s sentiments on the need to look forward in working with TSMVPL to have the best possible outcome for the community.
“The only way forward is to turn the page and to accept the decision that has been made by the court. I know that’s going to be hard and I know that’s not what some people want, but no other option is available to us,” she said.
“I truly believe our community, our council, our administration, our municipal government can navigate the future and still achieve the outcome and meet the values of our community. I personally believe the most effective area we can dedicate our attention to is managing our human use and that is something we can do.”
