Re: Concerns Regarding Proposed Zoning Amendments Increasing Density in Low-Residential Areas (Please include your residential address if you want to join the petition, or email it to smer.gibsons@gmail.com)

We are writing as concerned residents regarding the proposed zoning amendments that would significantly up-zone portions of our low-density residential neighbourhoods to medium and high-density zones. While we fully support the need for affordable and attainable housing on the Sunshine Coast, the form, placement, and scale of the development contemplated in these proposed amendments would have serious impacts on the character, livability, and infrastructure capacity of our community.

Concern 1: The current proposed heights are incompatible with adjacent, low-density neighbourhoods. 

The proposed amendments would permit buildings of up to six storeys, with developers eligible to add two additional storeys if they include affordable housing. This could result in eight-storey buildings directly beside single-family homes.

We agree that affordable housing is critically needed. However, transitioning from single-storey homes in a low-density residential neighbourhood to six or eight-storey apartment buildings (zoned as medium or high density residential), without a meaningful buffer is neither appropriate nor consistent with established planning best practices, which require careful gradation of height and density to protect existing neighbourhood character, sunlight, privacy and flow of traffic.

We believe that a key misconception underlying the proposed amendments is the assumption that high storeys[1] automatically translate to affordable housing. In reality, high-density strata buildings are among the most expensive forms of housing to maintain in the long term, and the ongoing operational costs fall directly on residents.

a.       Depreciation Reports: Depreciation reports are an important long-term planning tool for every strata, and are required under the Strata Property Act. They outline all major building components and forecast repair and replacement costs over a 30-year period, helping owners plan responsibly for future expenses. However, in larger multi-storey buildings, these reports routinely identify very expensive building systems, such as elevators, parkades, fire-suppression systems, window-wall assemblies, complex plumbing stacks, and centralized HVAC infrastructure. Because these systems are costly to maintain and replace, high-rise and mid-rise strata owners face significantly higher financial obligations, including:

a.       higher monthly strata fees,

b.       larger contingency reserve fund contributions, and

c.       as a building ages, frequent special levies, including those that can reach tens of thousands of dollars per unit.

By contrast, townhouses and rowhomes have simpler building systems, fewer high-cost components, and therefore much lower long-term maintenance and replacement costs. This makes ground-oriented housing more affordable to build and more financially sustainable for residents over the building's lifespan.

b.       Strata insurance premiums are substantially higher for mid-rise and high-rise buildings because these buildings have much greater replacement values and a higher level of insured risk. As noted above, taller buildings contain complex systems, such as elevators, mechanical rooms, fire suppression systems, large roofs, and extensive plumbing networks, that make them far more costly to repair or rebuild. Insurers, therefore, charge higher premiums and deductibles to reflect the increased exposure.

In short, taller buildings do not equate to more affordable housing options. While the initial purchase price may be lower, as confirmed by depreciation reports, the long-term carrying costs, strata fees, insurance, and future special levies make high-density buildings some of the least affordable housing options for families and individuals on modest incomes.

Ground-oriented housing is more affordable and more liveable: Townhouses and rowhomes, such as those in Parkland, deliver genuine affordability because they have lower long-term operating costs. Moreover, they are family-friendly and accessible, they maintain neighbourhood character, and they integrate naturally with existing low-residential areas These units represent the true “missing middle” that Gibsons needs and that residents support.

Concern 2: Need for a Formal Buffer between Low-Residential, and Middle and High-density Zones

We respectfully request that the Town require a mandatory buffer, such as green space, and a band of townhouses or other small-scale multi-unit housing, between low-density neighbourhoods and any medium or high-density zones.

Maximum heights should reflect Gibson’s scale and infrastructure capacity.

We ask that Council amend the proposal so that height limits are:

High Density: maximum 4 storeys
Medium Density: maximum 3 storeys
Commercial Zones: maximum 4 storeys
Public Institution Zones: maximum 4 storeys
These height limits still allow for meaningful density increases but ensure development is appropriately scaled to our community, steep topography, and low residential context.

Concern 3: Preservation of Greenspace and the Natural Beauty of the Coast

One of the defining features of Gibsons, and a reason many of us chose to move or remain here, is its natural beauty, greenspaces, forested areas, and coastal character. These elements support mental well-being, biodiversity, climate resiliency, and the overall identity of the Coast.

Rapid intensification, particularly through six- to eight-storey buildings, risks displacing greenspace with hardscape, altering view corridors, increasing shadowing, and diminishing the very qualities that make the Sunshine Coast unique. Growth must be shaped around our natural landscape, not imposed upon it.

We urge Council to adopt planning policies that prioritize the preservation of greenspace, natural buffers, and viewscapes, ensuring that future growth respects the environment that defines Gibsons.

Concern 4: Infrastructure Is Not Equipped for the Proposed Densities

Before any significant density increases are approved, we ask that Council acknowledge the current limitations in:

water supply,
policing and bylaw enforcement,
mental health and addictions support services,
access to family doctors and healthcare,
transit frequency and transportation planning, including ongoing issues with BCFerries.
These systems are already strained. Introducing multiple large multi-storey developments without corresponding infrastructure improvements will compound existing challenges and undermine the quality of life for both current and future residents.

Concern 5: Protecting the Character and Livability of Gibsons

Many residents moved to the Coast specifically to avoid the overbuilt, high-density environments that the proposed amendments would introduce. We support thoughtful growth that reflects the character, scale, and values of our community, not rapid intensification that disrupts neighbourhood cohesion and overwhelms local systems.

We respectfully ask Council to:

1. Reduce proposed height limits to 4 storeys for high-density, commercial, and public institution zones, and 3 storeys for medium-density.

Implement mandatory transitional buffers between low-residential areas and denser zones.
Prioritize townhouses, row homes, and ground-oriented multi-unit homes as the primary vehicles for density.
Preserve our natural green spaces and coastal aesthetic as key planning principles.
Complete a comprehensive infrastructure capacity assessment before approving any large-scale up-zoning.
Thank you for considering our concerns. We want to work collaboratively toward a planning approach that supports affordability, sustainability, and livability while preserving the unique natural beauty that defines Gibsons.

Yours truly,

Sara El Rayess

Mike Stewart

 
[1] Statistics Canada defines high-rise apartment buildings as having five or more storeys.