Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

A housing development near the Three Sisters mountains on the eastern edge of Canmore, Alta., on July 2, 2017.

Colette Derworiz/The Canadian Press

Town council in a popular Alberta mountain community has rejected one of two proposed development projects that together would have almost doubled its population in the coming decades.

Plans for the proposed Three Sisters Village and Smith Creek projects in Canmore, west of Calgary, covered about 80 per cent of the town’s developable land.

Council rejected Smith Creek. But it approved second reading of the Three Sisters Village proposal with amendments to deal with concerns about wildlife, affordable housing and taxes.

Story continues below advertisement

Third and final reading was delayed until May 11.

“I’m not opposed to development as long as it’s outside of the wildlife corridors and meets the needs of our community,” Mayor John Borrowman said Tuesday during the debate.

“We’ve heard from a lot of people at the public hearing that was held ... and there was a clear voice of opposition – although many who spoke indicated that they, too, were not opposed to some future development of Three Sisters lands.

“It seems to me that it was the scale and scope of both area structure plans coming together that was really causing the concern by the population.”

The public hearing on the two developments took seven days and heard from more than 200 people concerned about possible effects on the town and wildlife in the area. Hundreds of others wrote letters opposed to the projects.

Mr. Borrowman said in an interview that he believes council addressed many of those concerns.

“There were substantive changes made,” he said later Tuesday. “Council really gave it a lot of thought.”

Story continues below advertisement

Chris Ollenberger, managing principal with the development company overseeing the proposals, said he was still processing council’s decisions.

“It was a lot of information,” he said in an interview. “We are going to take some time to review those comprehensively.”

Mr. Ollenberger said they are still determining whether the rejection of Smith Creek could affect the financial viability of the project.

“It’s disappointing,” he said, “but we’re still processing the reasons behind that.”

Experts have said the two proposals to provide homes for up to 14,500 added residents and tourists would add more pressure to an already busy valley.

Two local experts said Tuesday that they had mixed feelings about council’s decision.

Story continues below advertisement

“Smith Creek addresses a third of the population increase,” said Karsten Heuer, a wildlife biologist. “That’s still two-thirds more people.”

Both he and Jodi Hilty, president and chief scientist with the Canmore-based Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, said they are still concerned about development in an area used by animals to move around in the Rocky Mountains.

“It is essentially creating a bottleneck for wildlife movement in that corridor,” Ms. Hilty said. “That’s been our issue for a long, long time and continues to be an issue.”

The wildlife corridor – and how wide it needs to be to allow animals such as grizzly bears, elk and wolves to move efficiently – has been debated ever since a 1992 environmental assessment found it to be an important area.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies