Four out of five council members rejected third reading last night; public will have big say in any new proposal
(By News Desk)
Gibsons council last night unanimously voted against third reading for the development proposal for Stonehurst. Councillor Lumley did not attend.
“There were a lot of concerns brought up by the public, and we listened” mayor Silas White told The Coast Clarion. “We [council] feel that this development does not fit the seaside character in the OCP (Official Community Plan). Also, we are not satisfied with the preservation plans for Stonehurst which the developer put forward so far.”
In addition, public opinion about the sale of public land has changed. “I can’t negotiate in public, but we’re interested in talking with the community about what we value in public land and what the town is getting in return,” White said.
The last two or three years must have been challenging for the developer, he said. “He was trying to meet expectations put forward during the last council[‘s tenure]. But council has changed and opinions have also changed.
“He [the developer] is obviously disappointed and frustrated. He says he will work with us, but he will have to come up with a completely new design.”
“If that happens we will need more community engagement, and I think a public hearing is too late in the process. We want some community dialogue before it even gets to a public hearing in order to find solutions that agree with everybody,” White said.
The recent public hearing certainly played a role in council’s decision-making process. “In any public hearing, you expect opposition and support. But in this instance, there wasn’t a lot of support, not even from people you expect it from.”
If the developer wants to move forward with a new proposal, White wants a lot more discussion about heritage preservation. “The Sunshine Coast Museum and Archives and the Heritage Society talked to us. We want to talk with Fred Inglis [the grandson of Doc Inglis, the builder of the house]. We need to do this.”
When will development behind the historic house, and the sale of public land, come up again?
There is no timeline, White said. “It’s up to the developer. We may never hear about it again.”
YouTube
Not many people attended last evening’s council meeting, expecting it to be on YouTube. However, neither audio nor video was available.
“We thought we were recording but after the meeting started, we were told it didn’t work, which put a lot of stress on us. The technology failed, and I’m extremely frustrated,” White said.
The newly installed, upgraded system does not work. “We are actively seeking help this morning, it’s a top priority,” he said. “I want to apologize to everybody. The system worked all through the pandemic, but when we decided to upgrade everything went wrong. We want our money back from the installer.”
Staff told White that a recording of the meeting could be posted later. However, the recording was part of the same technology and is not available.
This is great news – let’s keep it that way and protect Inglis House, have it properly registered as a Heritage level A building so the government can help the Town protect it. The rest of it should be a green haven that residents and tourists can enjoy. Even volunteers could discuss with the Town – the Rotary Club, people for the good of all, let’s keep high density development out of the most historical area of Gibsons.
And the George. No developer including the George developer should ever take or be given ‘The Very Best’ in order to build high density on land and sea we all freely enjoy and are healthier for it. I hope we can stand up to the challenge of protecting the harbour and its uplands from privatization. It’s round two.
Maybe we should sit in the audience and record the meetings ourselves just ensure that nothing is left to the technological gods of chance.
Mary Louise Guest
I would very much like to commend Mayor Silas White and the council members who heeded the voices of all those opposed to this flawed plan. Thank you for listening to your constituents, many of whom were totally surprised that the majority was listened to and the mayor and council actually listened to us and ended doing the sensible thing in this case. We hope that this will set a precedent for future proposals that are offered to the town by developers who may or may not be protective of our town and its future. And finally to mayor and council, keep working with us to help us grow our community in a sensible way without detriment to the unique flavour of Gibsons and we will work with you to help you do that.
Congrats to the Coast Clarion for doing such good research and reporting. I’m sure that was the catalyst behind the rejection of this flawed proposal.
Now, let’s do the same with round two of the George. Why is that sign there?
In answer to Peter’s comment — I’m told it was Klaus Fuerniss who put up the sign, not the Town.
I’m glad the Stonehurst project was not approved. The Town should not be selling any public land to private developers in the midst of a housing crisis — we should be talking about how this land should be developed in some way that benefits Gibsons residents. I have heard that this trend of selling off public land is happening everywhere and it is not a good thing. Mayor White talks about “what the town is getting in return” if we sell the land. Why even talk about that. Isn’t it obvious that the town doesn’t benefit from losing publicly owned land? What are the supposed benefits? A mere $725,000 in the public coffers for land that will make a developer millions?