Heritage home proposals face scrutiny from Banff's planning commission

A public hearing has been set for Tuesday, July 14, on a series of bylaw proposals aimed at saving heritage homes

BANFF – Banff’s Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) has weighed in on some of the more contentious proposals aimed at boosting preservation of heritage buildings in town. MPC had a special in-camera meeting July 2 to discuss the new bylaw proposals, which passed first reading by council in May. A public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday (July 14).

Allowing professional, financial, health care or office services to operate in heritage homes in residential neighbourhoods raised concerns, prompting MPC to recommend council scrap these from the list of non-commercial uses being considered. MPC shared concerns that this specific category is too challenging to regulate, monitor, and navigate. “Permitting these services within residential land use districts may bridge commercial and non-commercial grey areas too easily, introducing potential for neighbourhood conflict and resident concerns,” stated MPC’s decision released on Wednesday (July 8).

“Some commission members supported retaining resident-facing health services, such as non-commercial family physicians or counsellors, within the definition due to their direct social utility and positive contribution to community well-being.” The use of a property that is not located in a commercial district must be non-commercial in nature in accordance with federal legislation. The proposed bylaw recommends non-commercial uses such as daycares, public or private education services, public library and cultural exhibit, studio, religious assemblies, government services, natural science exhibits, along with professional financial, health and office services.

MPC gave qualified support for low-intensity non-commercial uses such as education and studios provided they are strictly defined. “It was requested that council should consider whether all uses in the definition of non-commercial heritage use are appropriate given their potential public perception as commercial uses in residential district,” states the decision. MPC said council should consider incorporating explicit phrasing in the bylaw requiring eligible non-commercial uses to be operated strictly by a registered charity or a recognized not-for-profit organization to ensure commercial activity does not manifest under a non-commercial definition.

Dave Michaels, manager of planning services for the Town of Banff, said some of the listed uses in the proposed bylaw fall within “a bit of a grey area” around commercial use, but the intent is they would be non-commercial in nature. “Obviously introducing commercial uses in residential districts is a big no-no from the National Parks Act and growth management,” he said during a recent council meeting. “This is really about introducing some non-commercial low-risk uses that we don’t typically see in residential districts but they provide a benefit within a heritage structure.”

MPC also weighed in on a proposal to allow a property that contains a protected heritage resource to transfer unused buildable floor area to another residential site in Banff. The site that receives the additional floor area would then be able to construct more floor area than allowed in that district, provided that the proposed building complies with setback and height requirements of the district. The site that receives the additional floor area could not be located in the lower density residential districts.

However, MPC indicated skepticism about the market viability of a residential transfer system and recommended council scrap this proposal entirely. “It was also noted that a residential development transfer market is non-existent, carries potential transactional complexity, and lacks visible pricing mechanisms,” according to the decision. If council rejects MPC’s recommendation and decides to move forward with the residential transfer program, commission members strongly advised a series of regulatory guardrails in order to maintain “public oversight and procedural fairness.”

They recommended MPC must remain the final approving authority over residential floor area, rather than decisions being delegated to a development officer. Members also wanted to make sure there was a mandatory MPC review for the receiving sites, noting any development that proposes to exceed its baseline permitted floor area ratio via transferred floor area must be referred to the MPC. “This is required to raise public visibility and ensure adjacent neighbours are formally consulted regarding density perception, heights, and setbacks,” said commissioners.

MPC also took issue with the current bylaw draft, which excludes lower-density residential districts from operating as receiving sites, specifically RMR (Marmot/Rundle), RMS I (Middle Springs I), RMS II(B), RMS II(D), RMS II(E) (Middle Springs II), and RTM (Tunnel Mountain). “This exclusion may be perceived as non-egalitarian, introduces geographic bias, and concentrates transferred density into select neighbourhoods,” said the commission. “If implemented, transfer tools should apply equivalently across all residential districts in Banff to distribute development potential equitably.”

Banff has about 183 properties on the heritage inventory, including about 140 residential homes. Only 15 of those are legally protected in perpetuity under a municipal heritage designation bylaw. In recent years, several properties have been demolished, including the Kidney Residence and McKay Residence, both Victorian-style houses on Muskrat Street that were demolished in 2022.