Editor:
Re: “Gibsons council puts developer first” by William Baker, Letters, June 29.
Gibsons council certainly didn’t “put the developer first” when Eagleview Heights came to us a year ago with an “apartment block” element we felt was too out of sync with the neighbourhood, and a need for an Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment to “medium density” from “low density.” Despite positive recommendations of our planning department and Advisory Planning Commission, we weren’t even willing to entertain this proposal. Council’s request that the development meet the OCP required a reworked plan with lower building heights, massing and density, which took the developers another eight months before they could get it back to us for first reading.
Mr. Baker writes of a “compromise” of 64 units, but we heard little willingness from most project opponents to support density at the public hearing. In fact, one of Mr. Baker’s co-directors of the neighbourhood association memorably stated, “Go for it! R-1, it’s done!” in his concluding support of R-1 single-family zoning. (He now disavows this statement, but it is what we had to consider when we voted.)
I appreciate that provocative phrases such as “extreme apartment building densification,” and claims that the OCP places a maximum of 48 units on this property (it doesn’t) are confidently claimed in Mr. Baker’s letter as well as in a mass mail-drop to the community for an intended effect, but they don’t align with the professional planning reports and staff expertise that our community relies upon for real facts.
While “extreme apartment building densification” conjures images of Coal Harbour, the “low-density” buildings we supported are actually two to three storeys. If anyone wants to see a “thoughtful density” compromise, compare the initial version of Eagleview Heights from 2017 to the final version that council ultimately approved, within our community’s OCP. All these facts are available on the Town’s website.
Silas White, Deputy Mayor, Town of Gibsons
