Around 400 people came to the Gospel Rock Draft Neighbourhood Plan meeting held on April 6 at Elphinstone Secondary School. After an hour and a half presentation by Gibson consultant Michael Rosen, they left disappointed and some say, insulted.

Rosen presented a plan to construct over 800 units and develop some of the controversial waterfront property. The majority of the residents at the meeting were expecting a far smaller number of units, under 150, as voted on in an earlier poll as Plan B. Many felt that plan was a compromise and a beginning and it would not include development of the waterfront. 

During the presentation and discussion of the 830 units, consultant Rosen reminded the audience that it would be some years before all the units were developed. He asked, “how many of you will be around when 830 units are developed?” That short-sited statement was met with a round of loud boos from the audience.

Many of the attendees were wearing buttons that stated “I Love my OCP”. More than one person during the public comment period stated that the town has a superb community plan that should be followed.
Concerns were numerous and included:

• Loss of a very special and unique place
• Too dense a development
• Not enough protection for wildlife
• Not adequate access with only a few roads
• Waterfront will be developed
• Consultant and town Council did not listen to residents
• Financial viability of project
• Source of water for the development

Some of the stated goals of the plan seemed to be in conflict with the actual plan. For example, it was stated that one goal was to encourage alternative transportation and walking. However taking into account the distance from commercial shopping in town, the steep terrain and no public transportation, it leaves people travelling in their vehicles.

While the plan states that 47% of the area will be preserved as parks and open spaces, much of that area is steep and unable to be built on in the first place. Considering the varied and diverse amount of wildlife in the area from bears to coyotes and eagles, many in the audience felt that the wildlife corridors were inadequate and were especially critical of roads that crossed through the corridors. 

While the Shaw/Inglis Road extension will eventually be the main access road for the neighbourhood, road access right of way has not been secured. Therefore the Chaster Road will function as the primary access road until the Shaw/Inglis extension is completed. This leaves a small road to serve over 300 homes, with the Bayview Heights cul-de-sac serving a few more units. This area is steep and not deemed safe for a major access road.

Another major concern is water. Where will the water for the GR neighbourhood come from? It cannot come from Chapman Creek so that leaves the as yet unmapped aquifer or some other source.
Perhaps one of the most controversial items was the waterfront land. While most people do not want any waterfront development, the plan includes 30% of the land for development. The remaining 70% will be preserved as a park if it can be purchased from the current owner before March 31, 2012. 

Dan Bouman of the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association spoke to the crowd and reminded the consultant that 60% voted for Plan B which did not include waterfront development. During the consulting period with the first town council, the SCCA was consulted. The Friends of Gospel Rock were included in the next select committee that recommended Plan B. However, the Refinement Committee only included the major landowners and land speculators he said.

Bowman reminded town councillors that they are obligated to act in the pubic interest and serve the public, they don't owe anything to land speculators. “When a town develops high density housing it creates value,” he said. “Is council getting value for creating this wealth? I say no!” This comment was met with loud applause. He then told the crowd that it was up to them to communicate in writing for the record. 

Suzanne Senger, president of the Gibsons Community Association, left during the presentation by Rosen in frustration along with many others from the audience. She said she felt insulted and lied to. She returned and during the comment period she said she felt that damage had been done to the democratic public planning process and that the town should respect the OCP guidelines.

Other comments by the public

“The town has a superb OPC. Any development is supposed to be smart growth. This plan misses the point entirely. There are no stores, no jobs, no amenities – the whole community will depend on vehicles.”

“I encourage the community to look for balance."

“This is the third meeting and not much has changed. I came to save Gospel Rock, not hear a lecture.”

“We voted for the candidate who said they would protect Gospel Rock. This is a plan to give away to the developers. It is offensive to taxpayers to waste their time and money. Will we pave paradise or preserve it?”

“Why has the committe disregarded so much previous work? You have fallen short of your obligation to the community.”

“What about the guidelines by the Provincial government to not trap people in an area in a disaster? Also where is the water coming from for this development?”

“If you are looking to Shaw Road in the future, why not do it now – not down Chaster?”

“The town should stick to the zoning. Why doesn't the town think about a view place for the public?”

“This is for our children and grandchildren.”

“I am still in favor of Plan C – no development.”

“Need to make more sense of our wildlife corridor. Think of the animals.”

“We have a jewel with dryland arbutus, an area that millions of people can enjoy. Why not create a world-class legacy? Leave it for the planet and future generations.”

“I question the financial viability of this from the beginning to end. This is not a benefit for Gibsons. There are other larger developments in play that are not doing well.”

And a comment from one of the younger boys in the audience: "You might not be here to live with this, but we kids will."

• Prev
• Next