Developer sues Canmore for $161M
Three Sisters Properties says it had OK to build based on approvals from NRCB
The company behind massive residential and commercial developments that would have doubled Canmore's population is suing the mountain town and members of its former and current council for rejecting the proposal.
Three Sisters Mountain Village Properties Ltd. (TSMVPL) is seeking $150 million for being prevented from building out the Three Sisters Mountain Village and Smith Creek sites, and another $11 million for the costs of crafting the area structure plans for both.
The Town of Canmore is named in the lawsuit, as are John Borrowman, Esme Comfort, Jeffery Hillstad, Joanna Mccallum, Karen Marra, Vi Sandford and Robert Seeley.
After public hearings that attracted considerable opposition to the proposals — mainly on environmental grounds — Canmore council overwhelmingly rejected them last March.
But the developer argues council members did so improperly after the province's Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) approved the proposals in 1992, proclaiming them to be in the public interest and to the benefit of all Albertans.
“Recognizing the potential for jurisdictional roadblocks by the Town of Canmore, the NRCB also ruled that Three Sisters must be granted “certainty of use,” TSMVPL president David Taylor said in a statement.
“Our Area Structure Plans for Three Sisters and The Village not only demonstrate commitments to climate change, affordable housing, employee housing and economic diversification, but also far exceed similar applications in any other Alberta municipality.”
Both sites are along the southern side of the Three Sisters Parkway and would have been built over the next 10 to 30 years, with space for 12,000 more residents and covering more than 300 hectares of land.
The developments would comprise residential and commercial units, including a resort and spa, a pedestrian village and an indoor recreation centre.
Much of the opposition to the development centred around concerns over traffic congestion, population growth and disruption of wildlife corridors.
They also focused on the undermining of the land, where the former practice of coal mining produced sinkholes and left the area susceptible to more movement.
But Taylor said the proposal's attention to environmental details was exemplary and proven in practice.
“One example of an area where we exceeded requirements and something we're proud of is our wildlife corridor,” he said.
“Not only did we meet the specifications set by Alberta Environment and Parks but we went further, expanding certain portions to better support wildlife movements.”
Banff conservationist Harvey Locke said environmental concerns remain and were forcefully presented at last winter's hearings.
“Biologists said they were deeply concerned — there are issues of the practicality of those corridors and whether they'd be effective,” said Locke, who also presented at those hearings.
Locke, who was a lawyer during the 1992 NRCB hearings, also said the agency approved a different proposal than the one rejected by Canmore council last March.
And he said including individual council members in the lawsuit appears to be a dangerous intimidation tactic aimed at chilling principled objections and democratic representation.
“You can name the town in it and have disagreements, but these people were performing their duties and serving the public ... there's a message in that for the new council,” said Locke.
“You have huge pressures from wealthy people who want to change the character of the (Bow) Valley — do the people have any say?”
The Town of Canmore wouldn't comment on the legal action due to the matter being before the courts.
And the town hasn't yet filed a statement of defence in the lawsuit that's the latest front in a series of disputes between it and TSMVPL.
Hearings pitting the two sides at the Land and Property Rights Tribunal are scheduled to begin Jan. 22, with the company seeking to force Canmore to comply with the NRCB'S 1992 approval and adopt the area structure plans (ASPS) for the projects.
“At every step over the past 30 years, TSMV has adhered to the conditions set out by the NRCB. Canmore's town council, on the other hand, has not, repeatedly and frequently pushing back against the board's decision and now preventing fair access to all Albertans to one of the most beautiful areas of this province,” said Taylor, adding the proposal is key to the tourism sector and economic recovery.
TSMVPL has also filed two applications for judicial review — one for each ASP — in the Court of Queen's Bench, though no hearing dates have been set.