A much-debated development proposal by Epta Properties returned to White Rock city hall Monday – only to be sent back to square one.

The decision by council’s land-use committee spurred proponent Angelo Tsakumis to say after the meeting that the city is “closed for business.”

Epta’s proposal had returned this week with a significant difference – it was to be no longer a 15-storey uptown independent living facility for seniors, but a general-market apartment project. The proponents pleaded an inability to secure financing for a seniors-oriented development.

Council members revealed a schism in the current government of the city, narrowly endorsing a motion from Coun. Doug McLean to send the project back to the beginning of the application process.

Supporting McLean’s motion – which rejected the request for changes as part of the current application – were Couns. Lynne Sinclair, Al Campbell and Helen Fathers. Opposed were Mayor Catherine Ferguson and Couns. Mary-Wade Anderson and Grant Meyer.

The decision did not sit well with Tsakumis, vice-president and director of Epta Properties, which has owned the land spanning the block between 1456 Johnston Rd. and 1447 George St. since 1981.

“What do you take away from this?” an emotional Tsakumis asked outside city hall.

“The biggest thing is that the City of White Rock is closed for business. How do you not work with somebody who wants to make a project a reality?”

But at press time Tuesday, Tsakumis said he did not rule out coming back with the project as a new application, saying the company would be taking a step back to evaluate the best course of action.

Tsakumis said the project had gone through about eight changes – many at the request of council or its advisory design panel – over the last two years since it was originally proposed as a general-market highrise condominium of 21 storeys.

He estimated the company had sunk around $1.5 million into the project, with architect Chris Diekakos noting it was probably double that, once carrying charges were included.

The two men had presented the revised project to the committee, noting there would be no changes to the exterior finish of the proposal, which included a four-storey residential/commercial building fronting Johnston Road and a 15-storey apartment complex fronting George Street.

A report from development services director Paul Stanton said that while there would be no changes to the Johnston Road component, the taller building would have gone from 107 assisted-living units to 100 residential apartment units, with changes in floor plan and less amenity space.

But McLean, Sinclair, Campbell and Fathers said the shift to general-market residential apartments represented a significant change for a building for which concessions in height and density had been made specifically to accommodate seniors housing.

“The gaining of height and density was clearly tied to the needs of seniors – this clearly needs to come back as a new application,” McLean told committee members.

“Rezoning is about land use, and, in this case, the land use is considerably different,” Sinclair said, adding she would need to look at all details of the proposal as a new project before voting on it.

Sinclair also argued a new application would mandate a public meeting prior to a public hearing, which would be necessary to help ensure “transparency in the process.”

Councillors on both sides of the issue expressed disappointment the proposal was coming back in changed form at this stage, after public hearing and third reading of the zoning bylaw, but before final reading.

Ferguson – who spoke strongly in support of letting the project proceed to a new public hearing – took Tsakumis to task for not knowing when the project went to third reading in June that financing could not be secured for it as seniors housing.

“The question has to be asked – why didn’t you know that it was not a financially viable project at that time?” she said.

Tsakumis said that it was only once approval was received that he could go to financial institutions for funding.

“Before that they wouldn’t look at it,” he said.

Tsakumis said that if the project was not approved, his company would probably demolish the vacant building on the property fronting Johnston Rd.

Both Ferguson and Anderson said construction of the project as residential housing would give a much-needed boost to the town centre, provide necessary infrastructure, including upgraded sewer connections, and was in keeping with the current policies of the Official Community Plan.

An active project, they argued, would be better for the city than a vacant site.

“I do not want, in any shape or form, to see a pile of rubble in the middle of city centre,” said Anderson.

Tsakumis said Tuesday that Epta would be looking at whether it was worthwhile to resubmit the project as a new application.

“What it comes down to is the plan we put in front of them isn’t going to change. Staff and everyone else concerned at the city will be seeing the same thing, which we think is a waste of taxpayers’ money.”