New Building Rules Divide Exshaw, Lac des Arcs and Dead Man’s Flats

As the Municipal District of Bighorn moves toward approving a new land use bylaw this spring, the question is no longer whether change is coming.

It is what kind of change residents are willing to accept.

A newly released “What We Heard” report from the final round of public engagement shows a community that agrees on very little when it comes to growth, housing, and tourism. Across nearly every major issue, feedback is split, often sharply, with no clear direction emerging.

A bylaw that shapes everyday life

The bylaw, first adopted in 2018, sets the rules for how land is used across the MD of Bighorn. It determines what can be built, where it can go and how projects are approved, affecting communities from Exshaw to Dead Man’s Flats and Lac des Arcs.

After multiple amendments and growing development pressure, the municipality launched a full rewrite in 2025. That process is now entering its final stage, with the draft bylaw expected to go to council for its first formal review in April.

No clear consensus on key issues

If there is one consistent theme in the latest report, it is the absence of consensus.

Municipal staff describe a “wide diversity of opinions” and “strong and often opposing viewpoints” across the MD, with differences not only between communities, but within them.

Even on specific policy questions, results often split three ways between support, opposition, and uncertainty.

One example is proposed limits on rural “retreat” developments, which can include things like wellness retreats, workshop spaces, or small-scale event venues with overnight stays. Survey responses were evenly divided between those who supported the density limits and those who opposed them, with a large share of respondents unsure.

That pattern repeats across other topics, making it difficult to point to a single community direction.

Short-term rentals expose a deeper divide

Nowhere is that tension more visible than in the debate over short-term rentals.

In Lac des Arcs, residents are deeply split on whether rentals should exist at all. Some see them as a necessary way to offset rising costs, while others worry they will fundamentally change the character of the community.

The report captures both sides clearly.

One group raised concerns about “transient visitors, noise, and disruption,” arguing that rentals could erode the quiet, close-knit nature of the hamlet.

Others pushed in the opposite direction, calling for fewer restrictions and higher caps, saying rentals provide “important supplemental income” in a region with rising property taxes and cost of living.

Even the proposed cap on rentals failed to settle the issue. Some residents said it was too high and would accelerate change. Others said it was too low compared to neighbouring communities.

Infrastructure concerns also surfaced repeatedly. In unserviced areas like Lac des Arcs, residents pointed to reliance on wells and septic systems, questioning whether the community can handle increased visitor use.

Rural areas push back on change

Outside the hamlets, feedback often leaned in a different direction.

Residents in rural and agricultural areas expressed support for scaling back some of the proposed changes and aligning more closely with the existing bylaw. That included removing or limiting tourism-related uses like visitor accommodations and short-term rentals, and keeping subdivision rules as they are today.

There was also concern about introducing new uses into traditionally quiet areas, particularly when those uses bring increased traffic, visitors or commercial activity.

In written feedback, that often came back to compatibility. Residents questioned whether new uses would “align with existing community character” or create conflicts with neighbouring properties.

In many cases, the issue was not just about a single policy, but about preserving how those areas function.

Growth, density and community character

Across the MD, many comments returned to the same underlying tension. How much growth is appropriate, and where should it go.

Some residents supported updates that would allow smaller homes, secondary suites or backyard homes, and more flexibility in how land is used. Others warned that increased density could lead to overdevelopment and strain infrastructure.

Concerns about parking, especially in Dead Man’s Flats, continue to surface, alongside broader issues like servicing limitations in hamlets and the impact of lighting on dark skies.

There were also repeated calls for stronger enforcement, with residents questioning how new rules would be monitored and applied over time.

A difficult balance for council

Municipal staff acknowledge the challenge ahead.

The report notes that perspectives vary widely by geography, age group and personal priorities, with some residents focused on short-term needs and others on long-term vision.

In practical terms, that means council will be weighing competing priorities rather than responding to a clear mandate.

The final bylaw is expected to reflect a mix of public input, technical analysis, legal considerations and long-term planning goals.

A broader shift across the Bow Valley

The debate unfolding in the MD of Bighorn is not happening in isolation.

In Canmore, the Town has just begun its own full rewrite of the land use bylaw, a process still in its early stages and expected to take several years.

Early discussions there are already surfacing similar tensions. Industry groups have warned that topics like density, building height and secondary suites are likely to trigger community concern, even as planners look for ways to allow more flexible housing and streamline approvals.

Together, the two processes point to a broader shift across the Bow Valley as communities begin rethinking the rules that shape how they grow.

What comes next

The MD of Bighorn draft bylaw is expected to go to council for first reading this month, followed by a public hearing in May and final readings in June.

Residents will have another opportunity to weigh in during that process. But the direction of the bylaw will ultimately come down to how council interprets a year’s worth of conflicting feedback.

After three rounds of engagement, the outcome is not a unified vision.

It is a map of tradeoffs.