A B.C. Supreme Court judge in New Westminster has reserved decision in a legal battle over a fourplex proposed for Garibaldi Estates and the 1959 common law building scheme that restricts development.
On May 8, Justice Frits Verhoeven heard from a lawyer for Clearwater Park GP Inc., which seeks to develop the property it owns.
Peter Roberts argued that construction of a fourplex is a reasonable use of the land. Clearwater bought lot 36 in Garibaldi Estates on Sept. 16, 2024, received a District of Squamish development permit a week later for a fourplex of residential units and has applied for a building permit.
“We're not building a nuclear reactor here,” Roberts said on the second day of the hearing. “A fourplex was authorized by the District's bylaws, it's encouraged by the province.”
Lawyers for neighbours Dennis and Andrea Smith, residents of Lot 35 since 2010, asked Verhoeven on May 7 for an injunction to stop Clearwater from building more than one dwelling. They moved to the area and bought their home based on the building scheme and the low-density neighbourhood.
Clearwater applied to Verhoeven to appoint the District of Squamish as an approving officer under the building scheme, or a declaration that the development permit was issued under the District’s capacity as approving officer.
Roberts said going to all 66 other area owners to get their consent would be impossible, so the building scheme is an impediment to its use of the land.
“Things change over time. These people who've been living in this bucolic neighbourhood for a long period of time have to recognize that nothing remains the same forever,” he said.
The case could test the NDP government’s 2023-passed Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act and amendments to the Local Government Zoning Bylaw Regulations. The province effectively ended single-family zoning and required municipalities, by the end of June 2024, to amend zoning bylaws to allow higher density housing.
Meanwhile, a lawyer representing the District of Squamish told Verhoeven that the District took no position on Clearwater’s application to appoint it an approving officer under the building scheme.
“The District takes no position on whether the restrictive covenant should be enforced by the injunction,” said Matthew Voell.
“The District also takes no position on whether the restrictive covenant should be modified or discharged.”
