
By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: Dec. 4, 2013
Despite intense lobbying and brazen attempts by some councilors to subvert OCP and its growth management principles, the population cap remains on private lands north of Garibaldi Highlands.
Squamish council voted 4-3 on Tuesday, Dec. 3, to reject a proposal to remove the population cap on Lot 509 and 510 in Garibaldi Highlands.
Owned by Vancouver developer Bob Cheema, the property encompasses 450 acres of land north of Garibaldi Highlands and west of Mashiter Creek.
Councilors Ted Prior, Susan Chapelle, Patrician Heintzman and Bryan Raiser voted againt the motion to remove the population cap.
Mayor Rob Kirkham, Councilors Doug Race and Ron Sander voted in favour of removing the population cap.
The decision brings an end to a year-long lobbying by Bob Cheema and his lobbyist Paul Lalli to remove the population cap to pave way for an estimated 240-single unit residential lots on portions of Lot 509 and 510 in the future.
OCP policies, in alignment with the growth management strategy, dictate Lots 509 and 510 can be freed up for residential use once the community reaches a population of 22,500.
Last one year, however, has seen Kirkham, Race and Sander make a custom-assembled effort to remove the policy that keeps the population cap.
Despite a large inventory of homes already available, the councillors have acted with an urgent haste on the land owner’s proposal to remove the population cap policy.
Seven months after the developer first applied for an OCP amendment, Sander brought forward a motion to continue processing’ of the ‘application to remove’ the policy.
“It (policy to keep the cap) struck me as unfair to the landowner.” Coun Doug Race
This after the planning staff had warned councilors they were asking to delete policies that were put in place for a reason.
Planner Sarah McJannet, for example, remarked how there are still 690 single-unit and 3,600 multi-unit dwellings within the community for housing needs.
She also said the Lot 509 and 510 were at the northeast boundary, and any development could mean additional infrastructure cost borne by the tax payer.
Her warnings fell on deaf years.
With the exception of Heintzman and Prior, all other councilors voted at a special business meeting this July to amend the OCP to remove the the policy 10-43 that dictated population caps.
When the motion to amend the OCP came before the council yesterday, it was evident the amount of work staff had to do just to delete the OCP policy.
Slide show after slide show revealed how the district would have to delete, amend, and reword at least five OCP policies to reflect council’s wishes.
The motion was defeated, but it’s still unclear why the councillors decided to show such urgent haste on this matter ?
When we already have enough housing inventory, why this desperate promptitute to remove the population cap to pave way for future development?
It’s about fairness and plain old housekeeping, say councilors who support the removal of policy.
Coun. Ron Sander said the council was confused about what this amendment meant, saying that this wasn’t a development proposal or a zoning change being discusses.
“We are not talking about a development application…We are not talking about a sub-area plan here,” he said.
Supporting the policy removal, Mayor Rob Kirkham said the district is ‘taking away the land owner’s right to development in the future.
Coun. Bryan Raiser said the district is stretched thin for infrastructure needs.
“We don’t have the money, our plates are full,” he said.
Coun. Doug Race was concerned about how unfair the policy is to the landowner.
“It (policy to keep the cap) struck me as unfair to the landowner.”
“We talk about fairness and transparency and this to me is about leveling the playing field.”
Downplaying the amendment, he said this was just housekeeping item.
His comment evoked an instant retort from Coun. Ted Prior
“You call it housekeeping, and we are talking about changing 50 OCP policies here,” he said.
Dave says
OK, so the District is stretched regarding infrastructure…something we well know! So what about G.A.S. then? Think about that one. Our future infrastructure responsibilities on that issue have still not been nailed down. Better do that soon guys!
Oh there is always Fire protection , Policing, Waste management, Water etc. All this does too apply to Lots 509 and 510 as it does with G.A.S. The people in charge should avoid living in their own bubbles and look at the big picture.
Time will Tell says
Didn’t the landowner know when he bought the property of the OCP ?
Poor judgement on his behalf.
Dave says
I agree with “Time Will Tell”.
It is not enough to say that it is “not fair on the landowner”.
Most are speculators who want to make as much money as possible; we owe them nothing. It is their risk. I am not against business ventures at all but this is the reality. If WE cannot afford it as a district then WE should not take the risk either.
Dude says
The added property tax revenue would offset the cost.
Don Patrick says
When the Mayor returns from China he may have another conclusion with respect to density … always cheaper for infrastructure to pile people on top of each other but it still comes down to food in and crap out in the end picture.
Judy says
I am out walking these woods every day – and every day I meet bikers and hikers who have come in from all over to enjoy these woods. This lifestyle is what Squamish has come to mean and don’t these tourists bring in revenue to the city?? I am very happy the council has put quality of living before enriching someone’s pocket for building houses we don’t need.
Squamish says
Squamish is a bedroom community the majority of our revenue comes from property tax (more property more revenue) The economy of this town is based on high paid professionals that move here and work in Vancouver or whistler. Building more homes will provide jobs for people in the construction industry add revenue, reduce the cost of real sate and rent increasing quality of life for those who live and work here.
Douglas R. Day says
The Developer knew of this Population Cap which was in place well before he bought these lands.
However, he just brazenly assumed that by hiring former Councillor Paul Lali, and the the guy that helped write our current OCP ( Phil Bonhame ) that they would be able to bull dozer over Council and the wishes of the people of Squamish to ram this thru.
He almost got away with it.
The unanswered question in all this, is just when did Paul Lali get wrapped up in all this?
Perhaps while he was still on Council ??
John says
The councillors who made these “brazen attempts” to undermine the OCP and the population cap on lands purchased with such a policy in oplace need bringing to question about their motivations to have this cap removed.
The cap is there in the best interests of the DoS and its residents, undermining this policy basically undermines the entire council process and IMO shows huge disrespect to the purpose and operation of council. To consider that the mayor is a driving force behind removing this cap associated policy to me suggests there is a significant conflict of interest between the interests of the community and these councillors (personal?) agendas. Is the mayor working for the residents, or private landowners?
For the mayor to suggest its unfair to be taking away the land owners right to development in the future is just plain wrong. Once population hits 22,500 he has the same right to apply for rezoning that any other landowner with a RE lot does.. HE purchased this land without the immediate right to develop, so why the concern for him now Mr Mayor?
He never had the right to develop at the point of purchase, he probably negotiated a pretty killer deal when purchasing the land based on the lot being subject to this population trigger.. Why are Kirkham Race and Sander prepared to throw residents under the bus to line the pockets of this developer under the ‘guise’ of it being about fairness?
“The motion was defeated, but it’s still unclear why the councillors decided to show such urgent haste on this matter ?”
Exactly.. time for more excellent investigative journalism Gagandeep?
Douglas R. Day says
Nice to see Councillor Ron Samder show up for the Council Meeting on Dec 3rd if only to help his new best friend Bob Cheema ram his greenfield development site ahead.
There were some 80 letters of objection filed and not one in support
Sanders comment at the Meeting was that these people did not really understand the process
Well they certainly DID understand the process Councillor Sander
I submit that it was Sander that did not understand the intelligence of the Public to see what he and his Buddies Race & Kitkham tried in vain to ram through
Maybe time for Sander to focus more on his day job in North Vancouver
If he attended more Council Meetings in Squamish, he might have a better idea of what’s happening here!
Jaspera says
Once again Race and his cohorts are riding roughshod over the OCP and the community-at-large. The OCP is there for a reason, and that does not mean amending it at every opportunity because some developer asks for it. No wonder people have such low opinion of so many politicians.
LArry McLennan says
It is my understanding that the 22,500 population limit was put in place a significant number of years (20?) ago and was, more or less , pulled out of the air as, at the time, a population of that amount was not expected for a long time. Now, as the District approches that amount , I believe it would be advisable to reassess the population limit and determine whether it is a valid limiting condition to the growth of Squamish and infrastructural planning for its future.
DJ says
RE ye olde population limits: That’s what district staff is for – making recommendations to change the OCP if required. The staff are the experts, not council. Council can ignore staff but it shouldn’t on items such as OCP population densities that affect infrastructure costs.
Nate Dolha says
Pretty typical response from Mr. Sander; attack the folks who disagree.
This was a bad idea from the start, and I’m trying to figure out what goes through some minds at muni hall? We can hardly afford the infrastructure we have, the likes of Mr. Sander want to strip money away from youth services and transit, but figures its ok to put our community on the hook for servicing urban sprawl?
Head shaking…