The Town of Gibsons is again facing court action over a development approval.
The O’Shea-Oceanmount Community Association (OOCA) filed a petition in BC Supreme Court July 18 seeking to quash the zoning amendment for the Eagleview Heights project.
The project, headed by TCD Developments, is slated for a five-acre (two-hectare) parcel at 464 Eaglecrest Drive and will include a mix of 87 townhouse and apartment units to be built out in three sections on the sloped property’s upper and lower benches.
The original proposal would have required a change to the Official Community Plan (OCP) as well as a zoning amendment, but it was redrafted to go forward with a zoning amendment only, which was passed by council on June 19.
The association had spoken in opposition to the project at several points during the approval process, citing concerns about height, density and traffic increases.
In the court papers, the association says the zoning bylaw “directly conflicts with the [Official] Community Plan, the effect of which, if left unchecked will dramatically alter the character and quality of life in their community and will, even more importantly, undermine the importance of the [Official] Community Plan.”
At the heart of the claim is the way allowable density for the property was determined.
The association disputes the way the Town’s planning staff calculated something known as “floor space ratio” (FSR), a ratio of the gross floor area of buildings and the lot area, and contends the development should have been restricted to a maximum of 48 units.
“Gibsons staff have invented a new formula to fit within the proscribed FSR, but have vastly exceeded the units per square hectare criterion,” the association’s court filing alleges, going on to claim council approved the zoning “based on a flawed and unreasonable interpretation of and departure from the [OCP].”
The association is also alleging that Eagleview Heights does not meet the conditions for the development permit that was approved by council on July 10.
In a press release issued after the petition was filed, community association director William Baker said, “OOCA believes the community was solidly against the bylaw amendment due to the significant density increase being sought by the developer… They were relying on a selective portion of the OCP and hoping Town
council would grant them a zoning amendment without applying the overall density limits. Despite numerous requests by OOCA to apply these limits, council chose instead to approve the developer’s application.”
The Town’s chief administrative officer, Emanuel Machado, said staff and legal counsel are reviewing the community association’s petition and “will respond in due course.”
In a letter published in Coast Reporter July 6, following one from the community association that raised many of the same issues as the court filing, deputy mayor Silas White said council asked the developer for a reworked plan “with lower building heights, massing and density” which met the OCP and that “claims that the OCP places a maximum of 48 units on this property … don’t align with the professional planning reports and staff expertise that our community relies upon.”
The Town has 21 days to file a response to the petition.
