Supreme Court hears GABC petition against Town of Gibsons over The George

Gibsons Alliance of Business and Community argues development permits should not have been issued

By Margot Grant

NANAIMO — The Town of Gibsons should not have issued development permits for the George Hotel and Residences before the provincial environment ministry had given proper notice that it had approved the remediation of the contaminated site, the lawyer for the Gibsons Alliance of Business and Community told B.C. Supreme Court in Nanaimo Tuesday.

Bob Kasting asked that the development permits for The George be quashed until proper process has been followed, while Reece Harding, lawyer for the Town of Gibsons, said the town has acted in good faith.

Kasting and Harding agree that the case has ramifications beyond Gibsons and The George: if Justice Robin Baird approves the GABC argument, B.C. municipalities that have opted out of the contaminated site profile process would no longer be able to issue development permits and allow construction to begin without official approval from the environment ministry.

The five lots where the George development is planned have been used for boat repair for decades and all parties, including the Ministry, agree it is a high-risk site. But Gibsons, like many other smaller municipalities in B.C., has opted out of the site-profile process because it lacks the staff and expertise to deal with contaminated sites, making the environment ministry the final authority.

On July 12, 2017, Vince Hanemayer, senior contaminated-sites officer for the ministry, sent a letter to the developer, with a copy to the town, saying the ministry supported the developer’s remediation plans and that a certificate of compliance would not be required.

“I read that, and it struck me as weird,” Justice Baird remarked.

After receiving the letter, the town issued the development permits.

Kasting and Harding have different interpretations of the letter: Kasting says it was not an official approval, while Harding holds  that it was, in fact, a practical approval. The ministry probably did not require a certificate because it costs thousands of dollars to obtain it, and clearly the ministry was satisfied the site would be cleaned up. The town acted in good faith when it assumed all requirements had been met, he said.

GABC Is also challenging the July 12 letter before the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) which will hear the case at the end of October. Justice Baird questioned why GABC has brought the matter to the court as well. Kasting said it is important to know whether a town can issue development permits without proper environmental approval, while the EAB appeal will deal with the environmental aspects. Harding and Kasting agree these are separate issues.

In response to a question from the judge, Kasting said GABC is a public-interest group that concerns itself with improving the community and the environment, and has a mailing list of 300 and a well-visited website.

“These are not folks who are against development, period?” Justice Baird asked, to which Kasting said he did not know. GABC member Suzanne Senger, who sat in the public gallery, said “no” and shook her head in denial while project developer Klaus Fuerniss shook his head and laughed.

Suzanne Senger told The Coast Clarion she hoped that asking the court to decide whether The George development permits had been rightfully issued would end the division in the town between supporters and opponents of the project, but Fuerniss took a different view. “This seems to me a waste of the use of the court. I don’t know what the problem is, I don’t know why we are here.”

Harding will continue his argument in Nanaimo Supreme Court Wednesday, followed by a submission by Aidan Cameron, attorney for the developer.