'I have a right to build on that property,' P.E.I. developer says of lot near Greenwich dunes

A battle that went on for decades, pitting ecological interests against economic development along the shoreline that now makes up Prince Edward IslandNational Park's Greenwich site, is heating up again.

Last month, developer Tim Banks received a development permit from the provincial government for a lot he owns roughly 250 metres from the fabled Greenwich sand dunes, 70 kilometres northeast of Charlottetown. The lot is surrounded by land which now belongs to Parks Canada.

• Get the news you need without restrictions. Download ourfree CBC News App.

That development permit is being appealed by the Environmental Coalition of P.E.I., which argues conditions to allow the project to proceed have not been met.

Meanwhile, Banks said a building permit he received to construct a rental property on the lot was rescinded hours after it was issued by the province last Monday.

"I have a right to build on that property," Banks told CBC News in an interview Wednesday. "The province approved it and at the end of the day, that's what's going to happen."

The province's website has a record of Banks' successful development permit application, but no record of a building permit being issued and then rescinded. Banks said a notice about the building permit was on the site but was taken down.

The site also lists two previous development permit applications Banks made for property he owns in the same area, both of which were rejected by the province.

A spokesperson for the Department of Housing, Land and Communities said the province could not comment because of the appeal underway before the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (IRAC).

No lot owners have built so far

Banks owns four lots in total in a still-vacant subdivision created almost two decades ago on land that at the time was directly adjacent to the national park's Greenwich site.

None of the people who bought any of the 70-plus lots in the first phase of development of the project, known as St. Peters Estates, has ever built a residence there.

Last year, Parks Canada bought a majority of the lots and incorporated them into P.E.I. National Park.Banks said Parks Canada approached him seeking to buy his lots as well, but they couldn't agree on a price.

They've got an appraiser [who] said it was [worth] $42,000. Our appraiser says they're worth $125,000 a lot. So we differ.Tim Banks

"They've got an appraiser [who] said it was [worth] $42,000. Our appraiser says they're worth $125,000 a lot. So we differ."

In fact, Parks Canada says it offered "a fair market assessed value" of $60,000 for each of 29 parcels of land near Greenwich, and acquired 15 of them.

"The Government of Canada is committed to increasing the amount of nature protected in Canada's lands and oceans for the benefit of all Canadians and future generations," Parks Canada said in a statement to CBC News.

"Over the last 40 years,Parks Canada has acquired lands near P.E.I. National Parkto protect the park from adjacent development.Land acquisition also helps compensate from the impacts of climate change as coastal lands are eroding at accelerated rates due to the increased frequency and severity of storms."

Two dozen lots still privately owned

At the moment,14lots in the development remain in private hands.

That includes four owned by Phyllis Diercks, wife of the New York-based developer George Diercks, who put forward big plans for the area in the 1980s and 1990s.Among Diercks' dreams: a 150-room luxury hotel and casino, an 18-hole golf course, and a time-share condominium development.

His plans were strenuously opposed by environmental groups, including the Island Nature Trust. There were legal battles in P.E.I.'s Supreme Court and the P.E.I. Court of Appeal.

Eventually, Diercks was involved in a land swap with the government that paved the way for the expansion of P.E.I. National Park along the shoreline in Greenwich. Diercks was left with adjoining land, including the property that became St. Peters Estates.

As all this was going on, a federal political scandalerupted when Banks's company received a contract and federal funding to build an interpretive centre and then lease it back to Parks Canada.

Jean Chrtien's Liberals were in power federally and Banks was president of the P.E.I. Liberal Party, so questions were raised in the House of Commons. Banks has alwaysinsisted he won the lease agreement fairly, as one of three companies competing for the contract.

'There appears to be no justification'

No one from the Environmental Coalition appealing the development permit issued to Banks this summer was available for an interview.

A spokesperson from the Island Nature Trust did send a statement saying in part: "The Trust unequivocally supports the expansion of protected natural areas in PEI. Parks Canada protects and stewards what is arguably the wildest expanse of land in the province, and unfortunately that land base is receding. Development adjacent to any protected natural area should always be scrutinized to the highest degree by those with the jurisdiction to do so."

In its appeal documents filed with IRAC, the Environmental Coalition contends that in the almost two decades since the plan for St. Peters Estates was approved by the province, "no development permit applications have been approved for any of the 70 lots."

The list of proposals turned down includes the two permit applications filed by Banks in last 2022.

We got what we asked for at the time, and that was: Don't develop the environmentally sensitive area, move the project further to the east.Diane Griffin

"In the absence of a change in legislation or other relevant factors or circumstance" since then, the coalition argued in its appeal, "there appears to be no justification for the minister to change his position."

Questions about water, environmental management

In fact, Banks filed his own appeal in January, after his two previous applications were rejected. That appeal has since been dropped.

But in documents associated with that appeal, the province laid out the reasons why his applications were rejected.

It said the water system installed in the subdivision had never been inspected, and there was no approved environmental management plan or human use plan for the area.

The province also said an environmental protection plan submitted in 2005 needed to be "updated and resubmitted for approval."

The province would not comment on whether any of these conditions have now been met in the subdivision, most of which is now owned by Parks Canada.

As well, CBC News reached out to Parks Canada but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Banks said he believes all environmental conditions have been satisfied, and if the province won't issue him a building permit, "I am going to start construction, and they're going to, I guess, have to come and try to get a stop-work order against me."

He said he eventually intends to build "very high-end" rental properties on all four lots he owns in the subdivision.

More restrictive rules

Previous reports on land usage in the province, including the 1990 Royal Commission on the Land and the 2009 Commission on Land and Local Governance, have recommended that the Greenwich area be preserved in its natural state under public ownership.

In 1996, Greenwich was established as a special planning area, providing more restrictive rules for development to recognize the sensitivity of the environment.

Former senator Diane Griffin was a key player in conservation efforts in the area for years as executive director with the Island Nature Trust.

She said moving ahead with cottage development in St. Peters Estates "would be much more benign on the environment compared to the hotel, the time-share condos, the golf course, everything else that was proposed in the past."

She said the land in question used to be agricultural land, and while it would be beneficial to include it as part of the national park, to build a buffer around more sensitive areas, "on the other hand, we got what we asked for at the time, and that was: Don't develop the environmentally sensitive area, move the project further to the east."