JUMBO RESORT 'FOUNDATIONS' IN AVALANCHE PATH, SAYS REPORT
By Wildsight
Immediately prior to expiration of Jumbo Glacier Resort’s environmental approval, two small cement slabs were poured in an attempt to demonstrate that work on the proposed development was substantially started.
These slabs apparently represent the day lodge and an additional service building.
Currently, BC Environment Minister, Mary Polak, is making a decision as to whether the construction of the proposed $600 million dollar venture can be considered “substantially started.”
Any development must meet conditions set out by the Environmental Assessment Certificate.
The Environmental Assessment Certificate includes a very specific legally binding condition that residential and commercial structures are to be located completely outside avalanche hazard areas.
However, avalanche reports prepared by Dynamic Avalanche Consulting Ltd. of Revelstoke, and made available this week, state clearly that both of these cement slabs are within avalanche hazard zones.
“The cement slabs are not only not a substantial start of a planned mega-resort, they are in clear contravention of binding Environmental Assessment conditions,” according to John Bergenske, Conservation Director for Wildsight.
“Its clear to us that these slabs on grade, without foundations, were a last minute attempt by developers to show that ‘something’ had been done—a far cry from a substantial start. Now we learn that the placement for both the service building and day lodge slabs are in areas not permitted under the conditions of the Environmental Assessment Certificate. Given the serious concerns about building placement, compliance issues and the risk to public safety, this should be the final chapter in the story of this ill-fated real estate scheme.”
“Its time for the province to act in line with its own legislation and cancel the Environmental Assessment Certificate,” states Bergenske. “We strongly believe that not only has there been no substantial start, but the last minute attempt to show activity contravenes the very agreements the developers have agreed to meet.”
Comments