An initially rejected request to reduce the setback from the ocean by half to allow for the construction of a pool at a Halfmoon Bay area property got another life on Oct. 17.
The Sunshine Coast Regional District’s (SCRD) electoral services committee recommended the applicants be asked to prepare an environmental impact report and should the study show the setback can be safely reduced, the variance be approved.
The applicants, owners of 7531 Cove Beach Road, requested the second part of the recommendation. The development of their residential lot where construction of different elements has already started, has been under permitting discussions at the SCRD since at least 2021.
Property owner Martin Gerber stated at the session that he was “happy to conduct whatever environmental studies required to show there is no impact” for reducing the setback to 7.5 metres (m) rather than 15 m from the ocean. He also asked the study effort be the final requirement for the granting of the setback variance.
“I am worried we will do all that and there will be no concerns and then there will be another reason to not approve," he said.
The variance would allow construction of a saltwater pool on the lot's oceanfront area that had been modified for a “plaza." Staff explained that as the pool is considered a “structure” (the plaza was not) and the SCRD increased the tidewater setback requirements to 15 m (from 7.5 m) in 2023, the construction was flagged as in need of a variance at the building permit stage.
Background and further discussion
The setback change request was not supported by the SCRD’s committee of the whole on Sept. 26. The board considered that committee's recommendation on Oct. 10 and asked for additional committee review of the Gerbers' two variance requests: to reduce the ocean setback and allow an increase in lot coverage from 15 to 20.5 per cent.
Two members of the public spoke at the meeting and asked the committee to deny the requests. The Area B Advisory Planning Commission had been divided on whether the changes should be recommended, a staff report on the meeting agenda noted.
Area A director Leonard Lee stated he could not see why the setback variance should not be allowed. In his view, the pool would have no negative impact for adjacent properties and as the variance is to deal with a “unique situation” it would not set a precedent for favourable consideration of subsequent ocean setback reduction requests. His summary was that the request “meets all five requirement of a variance. [I] don’t know why we would refuse."
But in consideration of the setback change, committee chair and Area B director Justine Gabias said she was “struggling” with allowing for modification of a staff-suggested recommendation “on the fly” and called for a meeting recess to ensure any wording change would be workable.
Oct. 17 outcomes
When the session resumed, Gerber’s ask was included in the recommendation regarding further study of the setback request. That motion was endorsed by the committee.
The lot coverage change, which was recommended in the first committee review, was again supported.
Both committee recommendations will be forwarded for board consideration. That group’s next meeting is set for Oct. 24.
