The public funding of the park maintenance and the logic of putting homes on an OCP-designated Greenways Corridor dominated the debate at a recent council meeting.
A divided council sent the Garibaldi Springs golf course development to a public hearing on a 4-3 vote.
Decrying the development on greenspace, Councillor Susan Chapelle, Jason Blackman-Wulff, and Peter Kent voted against the proposal while Councillor Ted Prior, Doug Race, Karen Eliott and Mayor Patricia Heintzman voted to support the development.
A major Vancouver-based builder, Polygon, is proposing a development of 350 ground-oriented multiple residential units in 4 phases, with access proposed from Dowad Drive, Tantalus Road and Newport Ridge Drive.
Polygon plans to transfer 68 per cent of the land, about 85 acres, to district ownership as a park and say they will restore pond and wetlands to enhance fish habitat and create new functioning wetlands.
I find it distressing that with all the building going on and all the density, that we take ecological areas that are carbon sinks, an area that has fish habitat for development. These ecological areas are important to the community,” Coun. Susan Chapelle.
While Polygon had indicated last year the parkland won’t need much maintenance, the district is willing to put up $150,000 for park maintenance as opposed to the strata funding the ongoing maintenance of the park.
Tax payers money should go towards funding the maintenance of the park, believes Coun. Doug Race.
“I don’t like the idea of singling this out as somehow not being the district responsibility. I don’t like to set this precedent, it’s is entirely public, it adds value and it should be publically funded. We are getting tax revenue from this and it would pay for it without adding additional burden on tax payers,” he said .
Coun. Karen Elliott also said the maintenance of the park being proposed be done through the public funds.
“It should be publicly funded, it would be well used by many people in the district and it will be a connection point for different parks in our community. It’d be challenging if it was paid for by the strata, and I’d rather see the district share the cost, and I like the idea of sliding this in as the community develops,” she said.
“The proposal will improve the environmental state of that property, and will improve habitat and cure some of the things that might have happened. You can apply many of the arguments to the adjoining area. These are not greenfields by any common definitions, no matter what colour they might be,” Doug Race
That wasn’t how Councillor Susan Chapelle saw this, who said the $150,000 would be a ‘significant’ hit to the tax payer.
“Two years ago, we cut $12,000 from our budget because we couldn’t mow our lawns. I recognise that 350 homes will generate tax revenue but adding $150,000 to our budget annually is a significant hit to the tax payers. Originally, we turned down the proposals because we couldn’t afford to maintain the park. I wonder what has changed. Now, we can afford this in our budget,” she wondered.
District planner Gary Buxton said Coun, Doug Race was on to something, and indeed there was budget for public maintenance of the park. “We have increased our parks budget, acknowledging that things like these come up. They are not coming up at all times, it happens over time and it will come in parts. We won’t incur the $150,000 immediately and it will increase over time,” Buxton said, lending support to the idea of letting Squamish taxpayers fund the ongoing maintenance of the park.
While no final decision on funding for park has been made, the council was also sharply divided on whether this development on greenspace should happen or not.
Once again, Chapelle sounded the alarm on changing a designated Greenway corridor to residential.
She said there are better areas in the town to build on, and this land could be remediated and given to the public exactly as it is. You can’t trade riparian areas, you can’t trade ecological areas, she said.
“It’s been an ecological area for a long time, and community has recognised this as greenways and green space. I recognise that some of this will be nice parks and given to the public in perpetuity, but the public has put this land to green space in perpetuity. I find it distressing that with all the building going on and all the density, that we take ecological areas that are carbon sinks, an area that has fish habitat for development. These ecological areas are important to the community,” she said.
Coun. Doug Race struck the opposing chord. “The proposal will improve the environmental state of that property, and will improve habitat and cure some of the things that might have happened. You can apply many of the arguments to the adjoining area. These are not greenfields by any common definitions, no matter what colour they might be. I don’t think this can be a greenfield, that would be torturing the definition,” he said.
Coun. Blackman-Wulff wasn’t supportive of the idea of pulling areas out of the greenspace for development. “We are not justified in this, we can quibble about green field definitions and I understand there are some improvements that will happen to watercourses, but having 350 homes will change that area for ever and it will be bad thing for neighbours,” he said.
Coun. Kent said there are as many as 5,000 housing units coming soon to Squamish and he would be like to see what effects they have on schools, hospitals and other public amenities, etc.
Chapelle warned this wasn’t the time to be rezoning greenways land for a residential development and said a second reading would mean an almost certain yes for the development, as if often the case.
“I find it in opposition to what we have stood for in council, as protecting greenways and ecological areas so as a council it’s disappointing. We have gone past second reading and I am hoping we keep our OCP to some value. This is an OCP amendment, not just let’s put some homes on green space. This is just a housing development, there is nothing for the public, this is less affordable housing than what our CAC policy states, and they haven’t raised the bar on anything except giving us back green space that can’t be built on. There are not even passive homes in here,” she said.
Mayor Patricia Heintzman made a brief remark as she voted to support moving the project forward.
“I support second reading, this is very complex development proposal with pros and cons, and I’d look forward to hear the community,” she said.
The public hearing has been set for April 24.
Jared Sissons says
The Property Tax alone would generate approximately 1.4 Million Dollars yearly. A no brainer! 350 Units X 4000 Yearly = 1.4 Million.. To pay out 150k for park maintenance should be easily absorbed.
Jonathan says
$4k tax per townhome and apartment?
How expensive are these properties going to be?
Linda says
Leave it as is. Green space & reserve. I concur there are better places to build. Park maintenance should be the responsibility of Parks Board.