Canmore Glamping Open House Fails to Ease Residents' Concerns

Developers behind a proposed 74-site glamping campground on Canmore's Staircase Lands held their first public open house this week as opponents continued organizing against the project.

The June 24 open house, hosted by The Trailhaus, the public brand for the proposed campground, marked the developer's first public engagement event since unveiling plans earlier this year for a seasonal glamping campground on the privately owned Staircase Lands east of Quarry Lake.

Trailhaus founder Zak Richardson said the company wanted to engage directly with residents rather than "exist in the background."

"We are committed to listening, learning, and working alongside the community as we address important topics around preserving the character and magic of Canmore," Richardson wrote in a Facebook post preceding the event.

Richardson said the company hopes to build trust through transparency, communication and ongoing engagement.

But Wendy Walker, a member of the residents' group Protect the Staircase Lands, said the open house did little to ease residents' concerns.

"It was put on by the developers to engage the community," Walker said. "But it really just ended up infuriating the community because it was pretty obvious they still don't really know what they're doing."

Walker said the group's concerns centre on the campground's proposed location beside an established residential neighbourhood, not the concept of glamping itself.

"In a separate location, I think it would be divine," she said.

She said residents are concerned the campground could increase wildfire risk, disrupt wildlife, worsen traffic and evacuation challenges, add pressure to Quarry Lake and nearby trails, and be built on land above historic coal mine workings.

"We're not against development per se," Walker said. "We're just against the rapid speed that is happening in this town."

Walker said she collected 90 signatures opposing the project outside the venue and that everyone she approached except one opposed it.

Opposition to the project has expanded since it first became public in March. Residents have launched a dedicated website and online petition and continue encouraging people to submit objections directly to the Town of Canmore.

The campaign argues the proposed campground is incompatible with nearby neighbourhoods and raises concerns about wildfire safety, wildlife corridors, traffic, infrastructure, recreation impacts and whether a luxury glamping development fits the intent of a "tenting campground" under the Town's Land Use Bylaw.

The proposal calls for up to 74 furnished wall tents on a 9.7-hectare property east of Quarry Lake in Canmore's Future Development District. Plans also include an administration building, washroom facilities and one communal fire pit. The campground would operate seasonally, with the tents removed each winter. Campgrounds are among the types of development the Town may approve in that district.

The developer has responded to many of those concerns on its website, where it describes the campground as a low-impact, professionally managed outdoor hospitality experience supported by wildlife, traffic and geotechnical studies.

The company says it hopes to create "a more thoughtful and elevated way to experience the outdoors" while respecting "the landscape and community that make Canmore so special in the first place."

The application remains under review after Town staff and outside experts completed an initial assessment and asked the applicant to revise its plans. The Town says there is no timeline for those revisions, noting they could take "several weeks or months to be processed."

Mayor Sean Krausert said the project will be decided through the Town's administrative development permit process rather than by council.

"As this is not a Council matter, no members of Council are able to answer questions about the application or involve ourselves in the process," Krausert wrote in a Facebook post.

Bow Valley Insider contacted the development team for additional comment and scheduled a phone interview, but the team did not respond to questions or attend the agreed-upon meeting before publication.