The Town of Golden will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, at 5 p.m. to gather community input on proposed amendments to the Official Community Plan (OCP) and Zoning Bylaw related to the Sevens development at 1551 Bowle Evans Drive.
The hearing will take place in Council Chambers at Town Hall, with a live audio-video feed available via Zoom for those wishing to attend remotely.
At issue are Bylaw No. 1506, an amendment to the OCP, and Bylaw No. 1507, a zoning amendment that would create a new R4-STR subzone, allowing short-term rentals in the Sevens development without a permanent resident living on site. Short-term rentals are currently prohibited in High-Density Residential (R4) zones.
According to the staff report, the proposal is tied to a broader development agreement that would see the developer fund approximately $2 million in upgrades to the Selkirk Hill Southeast Booster Station, a key piece of aging water and fire protection infrastructure. Town staff note that both the Sevens project and the next phase of Bears Paw Heights cannot proceed without these upgrades.
The proposal has generated significant public interest. Written submissions received ahead of the hearing include a mix of support and opposition, with residents raising concerns about housing affordability, fairness in short-term rental regulations, neighbourhood impacts, and the long-term availability of housing for full-time residents.
As required under provincial legislation, Council will not debate or make a decision at the public hearing. The purpose of the meeting is solely to hear public input. Council may consider further readings of the bylaws at a later meeting following the hearing.
Members of the public may attend in person or participate online. Instructions for virtual attendance and participation are available on the Town of Golden’s website.
A quick guide to what’s really at stake
This public hearing is potentially not just about one development or one zoning change. It sits at the intersection of housing, tourism, infrastructure, and fairness, which is why emotions are running high.
Short-term rentals vs. housing supply
Golden has spent years tightening short-term rental rules to protect long-term housing. The Sevens proposal would create a site-specific exception in a High-Density Residential zone where STRs are currently prohibited. Supporters say these are new units, not existing rental homes being lost. Critics argue it still pulls future housing out of the long-term pool.
A precedent question
Council is being asked to approve a one-off zoning subzone. Residents are watching closely because if one R4 property is allowed STR use, others may ask why they cannot. Whether Council sees this as unique or repeatable matters a lot.
Infrastructure leverage
The developer is offering to fund roughly $2 million in water and fire protection upgrades that the Town already knows it needs, but does not have budgeted in its five-year plan. Some see this as smart timing and shared responsibility. Others see it as development pressure influencing policy.
The increased traffic on the road will surely have some effect and should potentially be added to the discussion.
Upgrades to the road are also a consideration, among other possibilities that have yet to come to light.
Fairness for existing operators
Local homeowners who run licensed, owner-occupied short-term rentals face strict rules. Many have invested heavily to comply. The idea that new developments could operate under different rules without living on site is a major source of frustration.
Growth versus character
At its core, this debate asks what kind of town Golden wants to be. More tourism accommodation and tax base, or tighter controls to preserve neighbourhood stability and affordability. Council is being asked to balance both, knowing there is no outcome that leaves everyone happy.
After the hearing: What happens next
An explainer for readers once the microphones are turned off.
Public hearings often feel like decision nights, but legally, they are not.
Council does not decide at the hearing
By law, Council cannot debate or respond to speakers during a public hearing. They listen, collect input, and close the meeting. That silence can feel dismissive to speakers, but it is required.
Written submissions carry equal weight
Emails and letters submitted before the hearing are considered the same as in-person comments. With dozens of submissions already received, Council has a substantial record of public opinion to review.
What Council will weigh afterward
Following the hearing, Council will consider:
• Whether the proposal aligns with the Official Community Plan
• Housing impacts, including the Town’s own Housing Needs Report
• Infrastructure needs and financial implications
• Fairness and consistency in short-term rental policy
• Neighbourhood impacts and community feedback
Possible outcomes
Council has several options:
• Advance the bylaws to second and third reading, potentially with conditions
• Send the proposal back to staff for changes or more information
• Deny the application outright
A decision would happen at a future Council meeting, not at the hearing itself.
Why emotions tend to spike afterward
People often leave public hearings feeling unheard, even when their input is formally recorded. That emotional gap is real. It is also why follow-up communication from the Town, and clear reporting on what Council decides and why, will matter just as much as the hearing itself.
This issue will not likely quietly disappear on December 16. However Council votes, the broader conversation about housing, tourism, and infrastructure in Golden is far from over.
How many letters were submitted?
A total of 53 written submissions were received by the Town ahead of the public hearing regarding short-term rentals at the Sevens development.
How many were for or against?
The Town does not provide an official tally breaking submissions into “for” and “against.” All written input is entered into the public hearing record without being categorized or summarized by position.
Based on a review of the submissions included in the agenda package:
• Both support and opposition are clearly represented
• Letters range from short statements to multi-page submissions
• Common themes repeat on both sides: housing pressure, fairness, infrastructure, and long-term impacts on the community
In other words, there is no landslide either way. The volume alone signals that this issue has struck a nerve across a wide cross-section of residents, property owners, and business operators.
The main arguments, for and against:
Arguments in favour of allowing STRs at the Sevens:
• Golden needs more visitor accommodation
Supporters argue that spillover from the Bow Valley, Lake Louise, and Revelstoke is already happening, and Golden is missing out on tourism dollars due to limited accommodation options.
• These are new units, not existing rental homes
Proponents stress that the Sevens does not remove current long-term rentals from the market. They view it as purpose-built accommodation that buyers can choose to use short-term or long-term.
• Infrastructure upgrades are badly needed
The developer’s commitment to fund roughly $2 million in water and fire protection upgrades is seen as a rare opportunity to address a known risk without burdening taxpayers.
• Economic ripple effects
Supporters point to construction jobs, increased tax revenue, and spending by visitors as tangible benefits to local businesses and services.
• Golden is a resort town, whether it likes it or not
Some letters argue that resisting growth has left Golden behind comparable mountain communities, and that controlled development is better than stagnation.
Arguments against allowing STRs at the Sevens
• It undermines housing goals
Opponents argue that allowing STRs in a High-Density Residential zone contradicts years of policy aimed at protecting housing for residents.
• Unfair rules for local operators
Many local homeowners operate licensed, owner-occupied STRs under strict conditions. Allowing investor-owned units to operate without living on site is seen as an uneven playing field.
• Precedent anxiety
A major concern is that once one R4 property gets an exception, others will follow. Even if Council says this is “site-specific,” residents worry future councils may not hold the line.
• Out-of-province ownership
Some submissions raise concern that the development caters to non-local buyers, doing little to address affordability or stability for people who live and work in Golden year-round.
• Infrastructure should not drive zoning policy
Critics are uneasy with the idea that zoning rules change because a developer offers to fund infrastructure. They fear this blurs the line between planning policy and financial leverage.
Fact Check: What this proposal does (and doesn’t do)
• This does not legalize STRs everywhere
The proposal applies only to the Sevens property at 1551 Bowle Evans Drive. No other R4-zoned properties would automatically gain STR permission.
• This does not remove existing rental housing
The Sevens units do not currently exist as long-term rentals. The debate is about how future units may be used, not taking homes away from current tenants.
• This does create a special zoning subzone
Council is being asked to approve a new R4-STR designation for this site only, allowing short-term rentals without a permanent resident on site.
• This does tie into infrastructure upgrades
The proposed development agreement links STR approval to privately funded upgrades of the Selkirk Hill Southeast Booster Station, a critical water and fire protection asset.
• Approval does not guarantee all units become STRs
There is no requirement that units operate as short-term rentals. Owners could choose long-term occupancy or rental instead.
• Council cannot add conditions during the public hearing
No matter how compelling a comment is, Council cannot debate or amend the bylaws at the hearing itself. Any changes happen later, if at all.
• A “yes” or “no” will still be Council’s responsibility
Public input informs the decision, but Council must weigh it alongside policy, infrastructure risk, housing data, and legal consistency.
The bottom line
This is not a simple good-versus-bad decision. It is a trade-off, and Council likely knows it. The frustration reflects a community pulled between protecting housing, paying for infrastructure, and deciding how much growth is too much.
