A developer that has been trying to get a rural subdivision and equestrian centre built on the outskirts of Squamish for nearly two decades has lost a court challenge of a rezoning decision that quashed the project.
Tantalus at Paradise Valley Inc. and parent company Tri-City Properties at Squamish Ltd. sued the District of Squamish after it rejected the project because of concerns about flooding and other geological hazards in the area near the glacier-fed Cheakamus River.
B.C. Supreme Court Judge Mark Underhill rendered the decision in the district's favour in Vancouver on Wednesday.
Tantalus first applied to rezone the western portion of the 68-hectare property in Paradise Valley -- a mostly undeveloped part of Squamish with no water, sewer or fire protection services -- in 2007. It planned to build on 82 large rural residential lots along with the equestrian centre.
Squamish council voted on the switch from rural residential and resource to a comprehensive development zone a year later. District staff said it should be rejected or be subject to a comprehensive hazard assessment and an emergency evacuation plan.
Evacuation concerns were high because a bailey bridge over the Cheakamus washed out, leaving the Paradise Valley area stranded in 2003.
Tantalus came back to the district with a 2012 report by consultants that reviewed potential flood and geotechnical hazards and concluded the property could be developed safely if mitigations including dikes were installed.
A master development agreement was signed between the district and Tantalus that same year that outlined the terms and conditions under which the project could go ahead, which would have been developed in five phases. It called for followup mitigation reports related to flooding, debris flow, rockfall and wildfire risks before any permits were issued.
In 2017, an updated flood hazard management plan for the entire District of Squamish restricted densification in all identified flood hazard areas near the Cheakamus River.
Among its recommendations was that the district not take on the build or maintenance of new dikes in Paradise Valley because of their high cost and potential to divert new flood risks to other parts of the valley. It did, however, identify a small portion of the property as suitable for development subject to a long list of conditions.
Then a new official community plan was adopted in 2018 that limited land use in Paradise Valley, which is mostly government land with a small portion privately held, to "resource and recreation." That plan reiterated that the property lies outside Squamish's growth management boundary.
Though it didn't categorically reject the idea of development of the equestrian facility or dispersed rural homes, it said any building on the Cheakamus floodplain needed hazard assessments and other mitigation measures before getting a green light.
The district's zoning bylaws were again amended in 2023 to align land use with the 2018 plan. The Tantalus property wound up being included in that amendment.
Later meetings between Tantalus and the district were held where staff discussed the possibility of development, but warned about the "significant flood hazard" and lack of a mechanism for building a new dike. The district noted that, since the 2008 rezoning application, it was no longer willing to fund a public dike and the province "no longer approves new, privately maintained dike infrastructure."
Tantalus said there were inaccuracies and errors in the district reports, but the judge rejected them.
In 2024, the district went ahead with the rezoning that restricted development in Paradise Valley, having failed to get a detailed plan for diking and mitigation measures from Tantalus.
A supposed peer review of earlier reports for Tantalus saying the development could go ahead safely was rejected by the district, and the author said it wasn't intended as a peer review nor was it signed and sealed.
Finally, when it was time to go ahead with the rezoning that would halt development in the valley, Tantalus tried to give oral submissions. The council and mayor refused to hear the developer on the grounds that they already understood the project well, but times had changed and the district had learned much since 2008 about flood risks and the likelihood that climate change could worsen flood and wildfire risks.
Ultimately, the judge rejected Tantalus's challenge of the rezoning as unreasonable, procedurally unfair or in bad faith, with Underhill citing case law that showed complex development decisions are made based on a wide range of considerations.
"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," said the judge.
Later in his reasons, Underhill noted, "I have found that council was entitled to move away from residential development in the Paradise Valley ... The mere existence of older zoning in the surrounding area that permitted residential development does not ground a finding of bad faith."