Where the candidates stand on growth and development
The background
Squamish is one of the fastest-growing communities in B.C., and how fast and where it should grow is a long-running debate. The Province now requires municipalities to allow more homes on single-family lots () and has ordered Squamish to complete a minimum number of new homes by 2030, which limits how much council can slow growth even if it wanted to. Council has already rezoned most residential lots to allow up to four homes and approved neighbourhood plans that pre-zone areas such as Garibaldi Estates for more housing, which some residents opposed.
Large master-planned projects (Cheekeye, the Oceanfront) are under way, while the proposed Garibaldi at Squamish ski resort is in doubt after the Province refused to extend its environmental certificate. The next council will decide how growth is paired with infrastructure, amenities and neighbourhood character.
Key facts
- BC Stats estimates Squamish's population at 28,569 on July 1, 2025, up from 27,572 in 2024 (+997, +3.6%), tied with Langford for the strongest growth among B.C. municipalities over 10,000 people. [source]
- A provincial Housing Target Order effective Sept. 1, 2025 requires Squamish to deliver at least 1,069 net new homes by Aug. 31, 2030 (160 in year one), which the Province says is 75% of estimated need of 1,425. [source]
- The District reported 153 net new home completions in the first six months of the provincial target (year-one target: 160), 34 of them below market; the year-five annual target rises to 299. The District approved 434 residential building permits in 2025. [source]
- Squamish is cumulatively 286 units behind on housing starts under its federal Housing Accelerator Fund agreement, which expires Jan. 11, 2027; staff said rising costs mean more approved projects are not proceeding to construction. [source]
- To comply with Bill 44 (small-scale multi-unit housing), council adopted zoning changes in June 2024 creating the R-1 zone; many lots that once allowed a single home plus an accessory unit may now have up to four principal dwelling units, depending on zoning and site conditions. Further zones (R-2 to R-5) followed in February 2025. [source]
- The Garibaldi Estates Neighbourhood Plan was adopted in June 2025 over some residents' objections; on May 19, 2026 council gave three readings to five pre-zoning bylaws for the area (the medium-lot GE-1 zone, max three storeys/11 m, passed 5-2 with Couns. Hamilton and Greenlaw opposed). [source]
- Cheekeye: the development is approved for 1,395 homes (1,215 approved in 2024 plus 180 more) on condition the developer builds a roughly 24-metre-high, $115-million debris-flow barrier sized for 2.8 million cubic metres; the barrier was damaged by debris events and an atmospheric river during construction, and the District takes ownership of it in 2026 (the 10-year capital plan carries $100 million for the asset). [source]
- Garibaldi at Squamish (Brohm Ridge; proposal of more than 5,500 housing units plus 2,500 employee units over a 30-year build-out) had to 'substantially start' by Jan. 26, 2026; the Province refused the proponent's request to extend the deadline to 2031. The Aquilini-backed proponent says it remains committed. [source]
- Oceanfront Squamish (Matthews West) is planned as a 100-acre community of more than 2,500 homes; a 249-unit rental development with a childcare building went to council in July 2026 after Advisory Design Panel support in April 2026. [source]
- A six-storey, 45-unit mixed-use building at 38140 Third Avenue went to council April 21, 2026. [source]
- OCP: council gave first reading to OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 3139, a provincially mandated update adding housing policies and targets to the Official Community Plan. [source]
Agree or disagree?
Where each candidate lands on these 4 statements, from their own questionnaire answers or their public record. Tap a name for the detail.
“Squamish is growing too fast. Council should slow the pace of new development approvals.”
What does this mean?
Squamish has been one of the fastest-growing communities in B.C. Some say roads, schools and services can’t keep up; others say slowing down pushes prices higher.
Sean Easton 
Laura Prosko
Eric Andersen
Ian Brown
A. John Lowe
Anders Ourom
Kieran Brownie
Luc Perreault
Chris Ryan
Shaun Veltkamp
Jenna Stoner 
Sarah Ellis
John French
Sean Goodwin
Chris Pettingill
Daniel Deal 
Andrew Hamilton1 candidate hasn’t said — show names
Janice DesJardins- Sean Easton (for mayor) Strongly agrees
“We've grown faster than our infrastructure and amenities can keep up with, so we need to slow down, catch up, and stop approving development just to hit provincial housing numbers.”
- Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Somewhat disagrees
“Slowing approvals doesn't slow demand, it pushes prices up. The problem isn't the pace of housing, it's that amenities and infrastructure and economic growth haven't kept pace with it. We need to focus on attracting jobs here and building the housing that they need to attract and retain talent.”
- Sarah Ellis Somewhat disagrees
“I think Squamish should keep being open to growth while making sure our policies and practices keep pace, from building design and parking to active transportation, recreation and infrastructure”
- Sean Goodwin Somewhat disagrees
“I would agree that we are growing quickly but I think we just need to diversify where we are focusing the growth, we can still grow and maintain a healthy pace of development if we stop densifying the downtown core and leaning heavily on building condo's. I think we also need to start connecting the neighborhoods via new roads. I.e. Crumpit to Finch, Bailey Street, and possibly a road bridge along the tracks out of downtown from Pemberton St.”
- Andrew Hamilton Strongly disagrees
“The pace of new development approvals should be determined by whether development applications meet the community's needs, not by how quickly Council believes Squamish's population should grow. Note that schools are outside the Council's jurisdiction.”
- A. John Lowe Somewhat agrees
“we have grown to fast and we need to bring up to speed the amenities for who we have her now.”
- Luc Perreault In the middle
“Development is an important source of revenue for the District, and it helps fund the services and amenities our community relies on. However, residents must always come first. This means making sure our infrastructure keeps pace with growth. As we welcome new development, we need to ensure that roads, water distribution systems, sewer infrastructure, parks, recreation facilities, and community services are planned and funded appropriately. My goal is simple: support responsible growth that benefits the entire community, ensure development contributes its fair share, and maintain the quality of life that makes Squamish such a great place to live.”
- Laura Prosko Strongly agrees
“My Five-Point Plan outlines real solutions for Squamish. We must get back to basics first. Infrastructure must keep pace with growth, fiscal responsibility must guide Council’s decisions, and property owners need real tax relief. It’s time to turn plans into action and deliver results.”
- Shaun Veltkamp In the middle
“This is a complex question. The District of Squamish needs a STRONG Economic Development team to gather data and advise Council on these specifics of these issues. The only way we should continue is if we have the right people on council making strong, effective decisions based on accurate data. We need to push hard for provincial and federal funding QUICKLY for new infrastructure to support any prospective growth. Our OCP says we are expecting 12-14000 new residents in the next 15 years, an infrastructure push is critical.”
Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.
“Taller buildings (above 6 storeys) should be allowed downtown and near transit and services.”
What does this mean?
Building up fits more homes on less land, but changes views and the feel of downtown.
1 candidate hasn’t said — show names
- Sean Easton (for mayor) In the middle
“Height isn't the question for me — it's whether a project actually delivers what residents need.”
- Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Somewhat disagrees
“We aren't able to build above 6 storeys due to limitations in our fire service. I have been supportive of 6 storeys downtown because height in the right places, close to services and transit, is how we make room for people without paving precious intact greenspace.”
- Sarah Ellis Somewhat agrees
“I support higher density downtown, but would like to see good design, more useable commercial spaces, and realistic parking requirements.”
- Sean Goodwin Somewhat disagrees
“If these buildings are not going to come with more than adequate parking space and potentially some affordable storefront space. Then I don't feel there is a place for them downtown anymore.”
- Andrew Hamilton Somewhat agrees
“Taller buildings would require increased capacity in our fire department. Since a single building will not be capable of shouldering the cost burden of the increased fire service, a height increase should not be considered in a single-parcel rezoning but rather in a broad rezoning of an area.”
- A. John Lowe Strongly disagrees
“we want to maintain what view scape we have that makes Squamish unique. if taller building are situated where they do not disrupt our picturesque area then i would consider it”
- Luc Perreault Somewhat disagrees
“Our views are one of Squamish's greatest assets. They define our community, contribute to our quality of life, and are a big part of why people choose to live here. I support responsible growth, but not at the expense of the character and natural beauty that make Squamish special.”
- Laura Prosko Strongly disagrees
“We come to Squamish for its natural beauty, outdoor recreation and quality of life, and any decisions about taller buildings must respect the character of our community.”
- Shaun Veltkamp In the middle
“I believe we need to limit building height for residential buildings to maintain view corridors, at the very least until the next round of developments are completed, specifcally Oceanfront. In my opinion an exception would be if a high level hotelier were to consider a new hotel in Squamish and height was a major factor for room quantity and if it were to benefit the businesses of Squamish.”
Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.
“Squamish should open new land and new neighbourhoods for housing, rather than adding density to existing ones.”
What does this mean?
Building out spreads growth to new areas instead of changing existing streets, but it needs new roads, pipes and services.
1 candidate hasn’t said — show names
- Daniel Deal (for mayor) In the middle
“I believe we have more room to infill before looking to expand our growth boundary. That being said, we are limited in our available space in Squamish, being surrounded by mountains and water. Eventually we will have to look at strategically expanding our growth boundary, not for just housing, but also business. Of course this will have to be done in a way that does not impact our outdoor recreation.”
- Sean Easton (for mayor) Somewhat disagrees
“In general, I support developing within our growth boundary where we can. But every new project should be judged on its own merits and whether it delivers affordability and increased quality of life for all residents”
- Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Somewhat disagrees
“New neighbourhoods mean new roads, pipes and services that every taxpayer maintains forever. Making better use of what we've already built is usually the more fiscally responsible choice and helps protect the places and greenspace that make Squamish amazing.”
- Ian Brown Somewhat agrees
“I think it is time to gradually expand the growth management boundary.”
- Sarah Ellis Somewhat disagrees
“There is already quite a bit of undeveloped land within Squamish’s growth boundary, so I am cautious about one-off decisions to expand it. These are conversations that are best had as part of an Official Community Plan process, which will be coming up during this Council’s term.”
- Sean Goodwin Strongly agrees
“I support this strongly, I'm sure a conversation could be had with the land owners seeking development rights that in exchange for the ability to do so, they would add\improve the appropriate infrastructure.”
- Andrew Hamilton In the middle
“Adding density and opening new land are not mutually exclusive - this is not necessarily an either/or question. We will likely need both density and sprawl to address the housing needs in the coming decades. I believe increasing allowable density is an important first step, which is why I have supported it during the previous Council term. Exploring greenfield expansion beyond the Growth Management Boundary should be done in the context of the upcoming OCP renewal.”
- A. John Lowe Strongly agrees
“building out is going to happen as it does in all communities. The existing residents should not be held responsible for infrastructure cost. If developers wish to build they must be held accountable for all associated costs including associated needs of the community”
- Anders Ourom Somewhat agrees
“If the official community plan and other planning documents have committed Squamish to certain things with regard to land development, and all related requirements have been met, it may be difficult to change that now.”
- Luc Perreault Somewhat agrees
“To be honest, I'm not convinced the answer is simply more density everywhere, and I'm not convinced the answer is opening new land everywhere either. I think it's a conversation worth having as a community. If we're going to consider new neighbourhoods, it needs to be done responsibly, with meaningful community engagement and more opportunities for Council to be involved in those discussions. These decisions will shape Squamish for generations, and residents deserve to have a real voice in them. I'm open to exploring new areas for housing if there's a clear benefit to the community. That could mean creating more housing options, improving affordability, or delivering new amenities and infrastructure that make life better for residents. But growth for the sake of growth isn't enough. I want to know how it will benefit the people who already live here, how we'll pay for the infrastructure, and whether it helps us build a stronger community. At the end of the day, my focus is making sure growth works for residents first. If opening new land helps us achieve that, then it's a discussion I'm willing to have.”
- Laura Prosko Strongly disagrees
“We need to get our infrastructure right before opening new neighbourhoods. Brennan Park is an urgent priority and must be addressed before further growth.”
- Shaun Veltkamp In the middle
“In my opinion, as a community we should be honouring the current boundary until the existing neighbourhoods are built out. Specifically Oceanfront again and Cheeky, etc. We need to focus our infrastructure costs on those areas for now until we have properly revised the OCP to a current level, which is also a priority.”
Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.
“Height and density should follow clear rules set in advance, rather than being negotiated project by project.”
What does this mean?
Today much of Squamish's density is agreed case by case, along with what the developer gives back.
5 candidates haven’t said — show names
- Daniel Deal (for mayor) Somewhat disagrees
“Unfortunately, there have been several cases where the district changes the zoning during the planning and permitting stages. Different residential zoning have undergone significant changes R1, R4, and R5.”
- Sean Easton (for mayor) Somewhat disagrees
“Decisions like this should be made alongside residents affected by specific projects.”
- Jenna Stoner (for mayor) Somewhat agrees
“Clear rules are fairer to everyone - residents know what to expect on their street and builders know what they're working with before they spend money. That's part of what the OCP review is for.”
- A. John Lowe Somewhat agrees
“We need conformity and should take a lead role in managing that”
- Laura Prosko Strongly agrees
“We should have a vision for our community.”
- Chris Ryan Strongly agrees
“A common sense approach can work, but, for example, the lot across from Copper coil is providing no parking? This is not common sense,.”
Comments candidates added when answering our questionnaire, unedited.
What each candidate has said
Mayor candidates first, then council, in alphabetical order. Our summary of the public record; tap [source] to check it.
Daniel Deal (running for mayor)
Don’t slow approvals; fill in existing neighbourhoods first, expand the later
Says Squamish is growing quickly and services are not keeping pace. In written answers posted online in September 2026 he said there is more room to build within existing neighbourhoods before expanding the , but that the boundary will eventually have to grow — for business as well as housing — without harming outdoor recreation. [source]
“I believe we have more room to before looking to expand our .”
Sean Easton (running for mayor)
Growing too fast: slow approvals until infrastructure catches up; judge each project on what it delivers
Says growth has outpaced essential infrastructure and amenities and pledges to 'balance growth with what our environment can sustain.' He argues that adding supply alone has not made housing affordable. His non-profit DWIFT favours 'gentle densification' (low-rise apartments and townhomes). [source]
“Balance growth with what our environment can sustain, so future development serves both people and the planet”
Jenna Stoner (running for mayor) · current councillor
Leans against slowing approvals; six storeys downtown and near transit, but leans against going taller; make better use of what’s built before opening new land
Accepts that growth will continue and wants to shape it: 'We can't stop that change' (Squamish Reporter, Sept 3, 2026). In 2022 she said she supports the to focus growth within the existing footprint as compact, walkable communities, and pledged support for higher-density along transit. [source]
“I am supportive of the established in the . This helps us focus future growth within our existing footprint.”
Eric Andersen · current councillor
Managed mix
In the 2022 election he answered a questionnaire from My Sea to Sky, an anti-LNG advocacy group, in his own words: he said he was supportive of the Cheema Lands and North Crumpit proposals, giving as his reason that Squamish has 'too many competing uses of scarce valley bottom lands' and 'must learn to build housing on upper slopes responsibly', and opposed to Garibaldi at Squamish because 'scale of proposed development is a big concern'. These are 2022 answers. [source]
“I am in alignment with Councillor Greenlaw's concerns, in particular with the 400 metre distance. I'm uncomfortable with how far it goes.”
Ian Brown
Leans toward slowing approvals and toward gradually expanding the ; in the middle on taller buildings; strongly for clear height and density rules set in advance
Ian had said little in public about this before answering our questionnaire. Ian’s own answers are below. [source]
Kieran Brownie
In the middle on slowing approvals; strongly against taller buildings downtown; leans against opening new land and against fixed height and density rules set in advance
Kieran had said little in public about this before answering our questionnaire. Kieran’s own answers are below. [source]
Janice DesJardins
Build out (new neighbourhoods / )
Wants high density placed in new developments rather than in established neighbourhoods that do not want it, and supports development outside the current boundary to get off the flood plain onto higher ground. [source]
“High density should be in new developments and not in existing, long established neighbourhoods who do not want it. I believe in development outside of our existing in order to get outside of the flood plain and to higher ground.”
Sarah Ellis
Stay open to growth; taller buildings downtown, cautious about opening new land
Describes Squamish as a community in transition: growth has brought diversity, a stronger economy and a larger tax base, but she has heard worries that it is happening too fast. She wants council to be open to growth while ensuring policies and practices keep pace. [source]
“To me, that means being open to growth while making sure our policies and practices keep pace, from building design and parking to active transportation, recreation and infrastructure.”
John French · current councillor
Managed mix
Pro-supply and comfortable with Squamish's shift to denser housing forms, driven in his words by finance and land scarcity; is 'a key goal'. He acknowledges room to expand outside the but says it would be very costly. Has backed most but balks at height where shadowing is severe. (In a 2022 advocacy-group survey he was listed as supportive of Cheema Lands, North Crumpit and Garibaldi at Squamish.) No statement specifically about buildings above six storeys was found: he has supported five- and six-storey downtown projects while opposing a large height in Valleycliffe on shadowing grounds, so his score on the taller-buildings statement is an inference from that pattern. [source]
“Single-family dwellings were the dominant housing form for decades and it's a housing form that has become the housing form of the elite in Squamish.”
Sean Goodwin
Keep growing, but stop densifying downtown: open new land and link neighbourhoods with new roads
Says development can fund the infrastructure the town needs, points to the Cheema lands and Newport Ridge as opportunities, and thinks the should expand. [source]
Andrew Hamilton · current councillor
Not growing too fast: approve what meets community needs; clear rules set in advance; taller buildings by area-wide
States a general preference for density over sprawl and wants zoning that lets supply keep pace with demand. In practice he is a stickler for the zoned rules rather than a height opponent: he voted for the six-to-seven-storey Three Summits downtown development (Jan 2024) and seconded the six-unit transit-oriented zoning bylaw (Sept 2025), but voted against the seven-storey 38026 Second Avenue permit (June 2025) because it needed a height variance, saying council should stop granting height and change the zoning instead; he made the same point about the size, not the principle, of the Valleycliffe height variance. On the Garibaldi Estates (May 2026) he opposed three of the five bylaw votes and supported two, objecting to pre-zoning for densities staff said were not financially viable while stating he agreed with the neighbourhood plan itself. [source]
“Generally, I believe development (density) will lead to a more economically and environmentally sustainable community compared to development (sprawl).”
A. John Lowe
Leans toward slowing approvals; strongly against taller buildings downtown (views); strongly for opening new land, with developers paying all the costs
His platform says growth should be planned carefully, including housing, transportation, parking and land-use decisions, while considering neighbourhood character and livability. [source]
“Plan growth carefully, including housing, transportation, parking and land-use decisions, while considering neighbourhood character and livability.”
Anders Ourom
Leans toward slowing approvals; reluctantly for opening the Cheema Lands; strongly for clear height and density rules set in advance
Says that, subject to staff advice, he would reluctantly support amending the so planning for the Cheema Lands can proceed, because the District’s pre-conditions have been or soon will be met and “it would be unwise to change the rules now”. He says build-out could take a decade or more, that road access and traffic in existing neighbourhoods are key questions, and that planning should be tied to the neighbouring Holborn Lands. [source]
“I’d be reluctantly in favour of amending the “GMB” to allow planning for development of the Cheema Lands to proceed.”
Luc Perreault
Neutral on slowing approvals; leans against taller buildings downtown (views); open to new neighbourhoods if residents benefit; clear rules set in advance
His focus is that growth must pay its fair share and that infrastructure keeps pace: stronger , better infrastructure coordination, and public spaces and services for all ages. [source]
“As new housing, commercial projects, and major developments move forward, Council must ensure growth pays its fair share and delivers real community benefits.”
Chris Pettingill · current councillor
Grow inside the boundary — density downtown and near transit, no sprawl
Wants Squamish to meet provincial by adding density inside the existing rather than expanding onto new land: “We can’t put a barricade on the highway.” He is council’s second most frequent dissenter on development items, but those votes are mostly about parking, employment space and amenities rather than height — on the seven-storey 38026 Second Avenue permit he said he was fine with the height and voted no over the cut to required employment space. [source]
“In general, I would be okay with the height and even parking reduction, but I'm not okay with the employment reduction even at 20%, given the zoning.”
Laura Prosko
Growing too fast: infrastructure and Brennan Park first; against taller buildings downtown and new neighbourhoods for now
Frames her approach as 'balanced' and 'responsible' growth: fast-track rental, workforce and missing-middle housing while catching up on core infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, water and sewer, street lighting, parks) and leading a thorough review. [source]
“Squamish's future does not depend on choosing one priority over another. It depends on finding the right balance between growth, sustainability, community well-being, and long-term prosperity.”
Chris Ryan
In the middle on pace; strongly against taller buildings downtown; “high density, low sprawl” family housing
Wants the town to grow beyond one- and two-bedroom downtown condos, with family housing on the Cheema lands, and says parking and road access (a second route into downtown) must keep up. [source]
“This will enable our town to grow beyond one- and two bedroom downtown condos.”
Shaun Veltkamp
In the middle on pace; hold building heights and the for now
Says rapid growth has brought 'real pressure on housing, infrastructure, and the character of the community'; wants the reviewed and refocused and infrastructure put first, while supporting 'sensible density near transit'. [source]
“That growth has brought opportunity but also real pressure on housing, infrastructure, and the character of the community.”