A local developer's plea for forgiveness after implementing a revised landscape plan without approval brought District of Squamish council members' disappointment to the table during a Committee of the Whole meeting on Jan. 11.
"This is a project we [council] supported and the principle of law is that if you're coming for relief of equity, you have to come with clean hands," Mayor Greg Gardner told the developer.
Staff's recommendation that council approve a revised landscape plan for Riverstones, an 84-unit, five-building complex on 2.14 acres on Government Road in North Yards, raised concern among council members.
During the council meeting on Tuesday (Jan. 18), council members unanimously approved the revised and already completed landscape plan.
The Riverstones project was a partnership initiative funded by the municipality, the Province and the federal government, a fact that necessitates that it be done right, Coun. Corinne Lonsdale said at the Jan. 11 meeting.
Council approved the original landscaping plan in July 2009. After being deemed too costly to install and maintain over the life of the project, an alternate plan was developed and recently installed.
When council approval was requested on Dec. 7, Coun. Bryan Raiser stated the obvious issue:
"We're asked to approve a plan that's already been done, so we're looking for forgiveness rather than permission?" he asked.
Council decided to refer the recommendation to the Committee of the Whole meeting on Jan. 11, when planning staff and Bethal Lands Corp. developer Michael Hutchison defended the revised landscape and the reasons for the changes.
Planner Elaine Naisby explained that the landscape plan initially submitted by Hutchison was not supported by him, but was inadvertently submitted nonetheless.
"The applicant and staff discussed the need for a revised landscape plan, one that would have to be approved by council, immediately after the original plan was submitted," said Naisby. "Staff has worked with the applicant on the revisions, always with the understanding that the revised plan would be approved by council."
She said the primary changes included replacing a five-foot berm and retaining wall with a lower evergreen one, fewer trees and other plants because of potential conflicts with utilities, steppingstones instead of a landscape path, removing landscape lighting and barbecue pits in communal areas and a hydroseed wildflower grass blend planted on slopes instead of shrubs.
Naisby and planner Chris Bishop said that despite the revisions to the plan, it was still in accordance with the development permit guidelines.
"Both plans, to varying degrees, meet our guidelines in terms of form, character and planting materials despite the changes," said Bishop, assuring council members there was more than sufficient lighting in the area.
"The landscape that was installed is a sufficient landscape in consideration that public funds were used for this project," Naisby said.
"Also, there are some reasons above and beyond the cost that we feel are reasonable such as not enough space for the retaining wall."
Gardner said he undertood there had been "a lot of moving parts in a short, compressed time period," but added that council approval was important.
When Hutchison stood to present his side of the story, Gardner had a few words for him first.
"One of the holes you dug yourself into, frankly, is that we expect approval to happen before a landscape is installed," Gardner said. "This puts us in an extremely difficult position. We try to be fair when we make decisions and now, if we enforce the original proposal, there would be a whole bunch of additional costs to the developers and proponents.
"I'm quite serious people who build houses and look for building permits and variances later are in a different position than people who say, 'Hey, we're looking for a variance and looking for help.'"
Hutchison accepted blame but explained the complexity of the situation.
"During the development permit application, I was unaware of the development permit application, until the night before the development permit was issued, that the landscape plan had not been submitted," he said. "That's my fault and the fault of the architect up high.
"It had been submitted directly to staff, so the plan you see in front of you [the original] was never approved [by the developer] before it was put in and there were some aspects to it that were very problematic."
Hutchison acknowledged the awkward situation faced by council.
"We don't like to come back and ask for changes," he said. "It's the first time I've done it and it's not a comfortable place to be. It's not good. However, at the time the development permit was approved by council, I did mention to staff that the plan wasn't going to fly."
Hutchison pointed to the clear success of the Riverstones project. He said every other affordable housing project done with the same funding $145,000 across B.C. ended up being mobile homes.
"We were able to build a substantially better construction for our dollars, so when we talk about having taken out things like barbecue pits and landscape lighting, that money didn't go away," he said. "It didn't go back into my pocket or in the pocket of B.C. Housing it was spent on the building itself.
"I think the best example of that is that in the original development permit, there was one elevator and now you'll find there's five. If we were forced to put in barbecue pits and landscape lighting, that would have come out of the project in some other way."
