A proposal to remove of trees on district land along Highway 99 to heighten visibility of a new commercial development has prompted a community backlash, and a division among council members torn between moving the project forward and hearing from local stakeholders.
District of Squamish councillors couldn't agree on how to proceed after Coun. Bryan Raiser revisited Anthem Properties' proposal to create gaps in the band of trees along the highway north of Commercial Way, during the municipal council meeting Tuesday (Nov. 3).
With Coun. Patricia Heintzman opposed, council last week supported a motion to move forward with Anthem Properties' landscape plan after a presentation.
However this week, Raiser asked for a deferral, saying he wasn't clear on what last week's vote entailed, and additional community input should be involved. He said, since last week's meeting, he's been inundated with comments from local groups who felt their voices had not been heard on the issue.
Heintzman said she too had received numerous comments from the community, and acknowledged there may have been some confusion with last week's motion, as well as "what we were approving and the direction we were giving back."
Several community members copied their letters to The Chief.
"It is the concern of the Squamish River Watershed Society that all too often we disregard the importance of our native vegetation in favour of allowing developers to basically profit from our public amenities," stated society member Edith Tobe in her letter to council.
"Squamish is in serious danger of losing yet more natural habitat, a sheltered trail, wetland and potential blueway," stated letter-writer Ron Enns.
"There are some trees in Rose Park that are blocking the view of a welding shop at the top end of the Mamquam Blind Channel," stated Cliff Miller in a tongue-in-cheek letter. "Just think of how much lost revenue these trees are causing this welding shop."
Heintzman said she would support deferral to enable dialogue with all community stakeholders.
Coun. Doug Race also supported deferral, saying the previous direction given might not have been clear enough. Race said he was confused over whether council had encouraged the project to conclude or encouraged further consultation.
Coun. Corinne Lonsdale said she opposed the deferral because she felt the current motion, which includes the phrase "with feedback and input on the design as presented," already allows for a continued dialogue with community stakeholders.
"In my mind there's already an opportunity for that community input because it's a continued process," she said.
Coun. Paul Lalli also expressed his discontent with deferring, saying he believed the project's planning process had already taken much too long.
"Sixteen months is unacceptable," he said.
Heintzman said the trees are on district land, which should entitle stakeholders to present their vision.
Repeating disapproval, Lalli said he would rather push the motion forward with continued dialogue rather than defer the motion and bring the process to a stand still.
"A deferral will stop the process," he said.
Lonsdale echoed Lalli's sentiment, saying a deferral would slow the planning process down further.
"Does that mean we're adding six months on to the process? Does that mean six weeks or is it two weeks?" she asked.
Director of planning Cameron Chalmers said council had two options to defer the motion or not but neither option had a bearing on the final outcome since council will be in a position to approve the final vegetation plan.
Chalmers said community groups could be included in the dialogue whatever the outcome of this particular motion.
"If council chooses to hear from other stakeholders, that can be done through either process [supporting or opposing the motion to defer]. It's probably not going to affect the process one way or another," he said.
Mayor Greg Gardner said he would like to hear more from local stakeholders, while Coun. Rob Kirkham said he would like the planning process to reach the next step and present council with a more finalized vision of landscaping.
Lonsdale, Kirkham and Lalli opposed the motion to defer while Race, Heintzman, Raiser and Gardner supported deferral for further consultation with community stakeholders.
Council requested that the matter be referred to staff and return to council as soon as possible.
