The lawyer for a 蜜桃视频appcouple opposing the development of a fourplex told a B.C. Supreme Court judge on May 7 that a 1959 common law building scheme is binding and the Garibaldi Estates neighbourhood should remain low-density.
Corry Clark made her case to Justice Frits Verhoeven, a last-minute replacement for Justice Karen Douglas, at the opening of a two-day hearing in New Westminster.
Clark’s clients, Dennis and Andrea Smith, are Garibaldi Estates residents of lot 35 since 2010. They seek an injunction against developer Clearwater Park GP Inc., to stop it from building more than one dwelling next door on lot 36.
Garibaldi Estates created and registered a common law building scheme in the land title office in April 1959. The area was developed in the 1960s and 1970s and has remained a “modest subdivision” with houses of 1,500 to 2,000 square feet, big yards and large setbacks, Clark told Verhoeven.
“This is a local law between the residents of the subdivision and they purchased their property relying on this scheme, as did other residents who've given evidence here,” Clark said. “They say injunctive relief is the only remedy which can vindicate their interest in enforcing the building scheme.”
The Pat Goode Subdivision within Garibaldi Estates is a “quiet place with minimal traffic. Residents can walk and drive through the area. Kids can play in their yards and on the streets in front of their homes.”
Clark argued that cancellation of the building scheme would allow Clearwater to proceed with its fourplex project and trigger higher-density development that would reduce privacy, safety, walkability, green space and tree canopy, and increase the risk of flooding, traffic noise and shade from bigger buildings.
The Smiths, Clark said, “relied upon the building scheme when making their decision to purchase their house, it gave them assurance that the existing single-family dwellings would remain, would remain a low density residential neighbourhood.”
Clark also said the case is not just about the Smiths. Rather, it is for the benefit of all residents to enforce the building scheme. She said there is no evidence of any hardship that Clearwater would suffer if the building scheme is enforced.
“It purchased lot 36 with knowledge of the scheme and took a calculated risk that its neighbours would not invest in the time and money necessary to seek the enforcement of the scheme,” Clark said.
Clearwater bought the property on Sept. 16, 2024, received a development permit a week later for a fourplex of residential units and has applied for a building permit.
Under the building scheme, development is restricted “until proper plans … have been submitted to and approved by an approving officer appointed by the grantor.”
Clearwater is opposing the Smiths’ petition. The court is also hearing Clearwater’s pétition that seeks to cancel the building scheme, which it calls a “historical anomaly” that stands in the way of much-needed housing supply in the District of Squamish.
Clearwater is asking the court for the appointment of the District 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.
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.
The case continues May 8.
