A B.C. Supreme Court judge upheld District of Squamish council’s unanimous decision to reject the proposed Paradise Trails at Squamish eco-village near the Cheakamus River.
“The enactment of the rezoning bylaw was reasonable, and there was no breach of any duty of fairness owed to the petitioners,” said Justice Mark Underhill in an Aug. 20 written ruling. “I also find the rezoning bylaw was adopted in good faith.”
Tantalus at Paradise Valley Inc. and parent company Tri‑City Properties at Squamish Ltd. filed for the judicial review, calling District council’s June 18, 2024 vote unreasonable and procedurally unfair.
“A third ground, bad faith, was also raised, although it was pursued to a lesser extent in the petitioners’ submissions,” wrote Underhill, who heard arguments from lawyers for the developer and District from April 1 to 4 in Vancouver.
In 2007, Tantalus applied to rezone the western portion of its 168-acre property from rural residential and resource to comprehensive development zone. It wanted to build an equestrian centre and 82 rural residential lots up to two acres in size. The lots were without municipal water, sewer infrastructure or fire protection services and located outside the District’s growth management boundary.
A 2008 staff report recommended against the proposal due to geological hazards, but the proponent’s 2012 report by LaCas Consultants recommended measures for flood control and mitigation. The District and Tantalus reached a master development agreement to let the project conditionally proceed. The proposal was adopted September 2012.
“While the staff report before council continued to express concerns about the rezoning and the fit of the proposed development at that specific location and within the Paradise Valley more generally, it did state that the property ‘may be developed safely for the use intended subject to appropriate mitigation works’,” Underhill said.
Five years later, in 2017, the District adopted an Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan (IFHMP), which restricted densification in all Cheakamus River flood hazard areas. The District repealed the existing, 2009 official community plan in 2018. The property lands were designated resource and recreation.
Tantalus began talking with the District again about development of the property in September 2021 and applied in March 2024, claiming that engineers it retained had found significant mistakes in the flood studies that formed the basis of the IFHMP.
By June, staff told District council that Tantalus had yet to provide a report to address the relevant guidelines in the development permit area, so there was no formal application to be processed.
Council had the discretion to hold a public hearing, but Underhill found the failure to exercise the discretion was not a matter of procedural unfairness. He acknowledged the petitioners provided a lengthy, eight-page email on the morning of June 18, 2024, and had in-person meetings with individual councillors and multiple meetings with the mayor.
“There is no evidence before me that the petitioners would have said anything more or differently in the meeting on June 18 than what they said in writing or in the individual meetings they had with the members of council.”
Underhill also found that council made its decision out of concern for the need to potentially take on more diking responsibilities.
“In my view, it is not irrational or illogical for council to pursue rezoning, and specifically rezoning which provides for less development, in an area outside of its growth management boundary where there are few municipal services and a recognized flooding risk,” Underhill wrote.
The Tantalus property was assessed at $3.4 million last year, down from a value of $7.16 million.
