The lawyer for a company looking to develop a residential area with various amenities was in B.C. Supreme Court beginning April 1 claiming the District of Squamish acted unreasonably in blocking the development.
Nathalie Baker appeared before Justice Mark Underhill on behalf of Tantalus at Paradise Valley Inc., which had sought to rezone and develop land for 82 rural residential lots and an equestrian centre.
She said the process for rezoning the land near the Cheakamus River began more than a decade ago.
The District approved the Tantalus application to rezone the land in 2008, the Tantalus July 15 petition to the court said.
“Between 2008 and 2012, Tantalus provided the District with various requested reports, including a July 11, 2012 peer-reviewed report of flooding and geotechnical hazards,” the petition said.
The petition noted the District’s 2023 Housing Needs Report said:
• Squamish’s annual growth rate is close to three times the provincial average;
• the high growth population projection for Squamish could see about 24,000 new residents by 2036; and,
• by 2031, 6,840 additional housing units will be needed in the district to maintain income and housing diversity.
In its Sept. 24, 2024 response to the Tantalus petition, the District said that same report said the community specifically needed housing for rentals, families, seniors, people at risk, and special needs individuals.
“The Housing Needs Report does not recommend the provision of housing in high-hazard areas,” the response said.
Baker said District staff were not supportive of the project but council agreed to it with conditions. The company lawyer told Underhill District staff said Tantalus had not met all the conditions.
The petition said Tantalus had problems meeting with District staff, eventually complaining to the council about it.
It was in June 2019 that council adopted a new official community plan.
In 2020, Tantalus began preparations for the project, the petition said.
In September 2021, the petition said, staff advised that while they were not opposed to the project, the District understood that the inspector of dikes would require a public dike. Tantalus was told the District was not willing to take on the maintenance of any public dike due to municipal policy.
In June 2023, staff told Tantatus it was going to downzone the property to stop it from moving forward, according to the petition.
“Tantalus explained to the District that a public dike was not required, and it expressed its concerns with the proposed downzoning of the property,” the petition said.
The District of Squamish argument
In its Sept. 24, 2024 response to the Tantalus petition, the District referenced its Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan, a district-wide assessment of flooding hazards.
The response said the District understood the inspector of dikes would require a public dike for the project, something the new community plan does not envision taking on.
It further said the property would be rezoned to bring it in line with the new official community plan, including relevant flood-related policies.
And, the response said, District staff met with Tantalus representatives who expressed opposition to the rezoning.
It said the dike issue once again arose and the representatives were told provincial policy no longer permitted private dikes.
So, Tantalus began working with the inspector.
By March 2024, the response said, Tantalus provided an application package with a cover letter saying, in part, “this property does not flood.”
The response said the letter further said a private dike was sufficient to meet provincial and District guidelines.
The District was represented before Underhill by lawyer James Yardley.
What does the company want?
What the company wants, according to its July 15, 2024 petition to the court, is declaration that the decision made by the District council on June 18, 2024 to downzone Tantalus at Paradise Valley Inc.’s property from comprehensive development to resource was unlawful, unreasonable or was made in bad faith.
It further seeks an order quashing the District’s downzoning bylaw.
The District, however, argued the right to procedural fairness in the case was at a low level and had been met through council’s consideration and the mayor’s questions.
The response further said the company had not shown the District’s behaviour to be unreasonable.
The case before Underhill was set for April 1-4.
