CANMORE – The first hearing with the the Land and Property Rights Tribunal was held over the defeated Smith Creek area structure plan.
The quasi-judicial tribunal held the preliminary hearing earlier this month between the Town of Canmore and Three Sisters Mountain Village Properties Limited (TSMVPL), with preliminary dates being set for subsequent hearings.
While both the Town and TSMVPL requested a merit hearing of evidence to be held in-person in Edmonton, the specific dates were unable to be confirmed, though are tentatively for February 2022 for two to three weeks.
The virtual hearing included multiple staff from the Town of Canmore, several people representing TSMVPL as well as four members of Canmore council and council hopeful Tanya Foubert. The tribunal was held by provincial representatives, while lawyers for each side made their opening remarks.
TSMVPL originally filed the appeal on July 9 and did so under Section 619 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA). Under the section, the hearing has to begin within 60 days and once completed, a decision rendered within 30 days after the hearing’s completion.
The appeal cited the 1992 Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) decision for the project going forward, arguing the Town was required to approve the ASP if the “application complied with the approval or other authorization granted in the NRCB decision.”
It also states Section 619 of the MGA required the Town to approve Smith Creek.
TSMVPL also argued the existing and previous owners attempted multiple planning approvals, but have been “characterized by long delays, unauthorized and unnecessary impediments and procedures that have frustrated the project,” states the appeal.
TSMVPL’s appeal also highlighted the company worked with the Town between 2017 to 2020 to develop the ASP, which combined with the Three Sisters Village ASP, cost more than $11 million to complete.
The Town requested the appeal be dismissed due to Section 619 not applying to Smith Creek since the 1992 NRCB decision predates the addition of Section 619 and Smith Creek not being a statutory plan amendment to the original 1992 NRCB decision, but a new statutory plan.
The municipality also argued Smith Creek has the Thunderstone Quarry Lands, which weren’t part of the 1992 NRCB decision and the ASP not being consistent with the NRCB decision.
TSMVPL also filed on June 14 and was granted judicial review on June 25 for Smith Creek and Three Sisters Village, but it was adjourned sine die, which means there’s no timeline for it’s completion similar to an appeal.
The Smith Creek ASP proposed an estimated population of between 2,200 to 4,500, with between 1,000 to 2,150 residential units. There was also up to 75,000-square-feet of light industrial and business space as well as upwards of 125,000-square-feet of retail and commercial area for local services in the plan.
The second preliminary hearing for Smith Creek will be held later this month – at the same time as the opening of the Three Sisters Village hearing – and consider submissions from potential intervenors, whether submissions from the parties should need another preliminary hearing and if the appeals for Smith Creek and Three Sisters Village should be combined.
TSMVPL argued the two ASPs were different and shouldn’t be consolidated, while the Town is aiming to have both heard together since “much of the evidence would be common to both appeals and that it would be more efficient and cost-effective for the two appeals to be consolidated.”
Smith Creek was defeated at second reading by Canmore council, which also subsequently voted down the Three Sisters Village plan at third reading.
The proposed projects garnered significant attention from residents, culminating in a lengthy virtual public hearing with several hundred people presenting and many more submitting written responses.
Under Section 619, the tribunal will only hear from the appellant and the municipality defending against the appeal.
All subsequent amendments made by Canmore council wouldn’t be considered since both ASPs were voted down. The tribunal is only considering the originally submitted ASPs.
This is the second time appeals have been filed against the Town of Canmore for the lands owned by TSMVPL. In 1997, the then owner – Three Sisters Golf Resorts – won an appeal following a defeated plan in 1996. The Town filed its own appeal and the two sides settled in 1998.
