langleywatchdog…. and more!

Who said you can’t fight City Hall, just maybe this decision will instill courage into the many residents who may have thought all was lost. This decision only happened thanks to the incredible hard work, commitment and financial resources by members of the Society of Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development.

So, to all of those out there that tried to dismiss this challenge by throwing out threats, accusations and bullying tactics against those that have worked so hard to protect due process, be warned that the light at the end of the tunnel is not daylight, it is a train headed your way. What has and is going on in the Township of Langley is wrong and MUST be stopped. Here is a great first step!

I have just returned from spending 1 ½ of the 2 day B.C. Supreme Court Petition hearing for Judicial Review held in Chilliwack B.C. with Justice Groves presiding. The end result (verbal decision) was quite unexpected by all concerned as I think it would be fair to suggest a Reserved Decision was expected. The only conundrum in the case for all concerned, including the Judge, was what happens to the development while a decision is being considered. Therefore in retrospect a decision certainly was preferred which is what Justice Groves mentioned in his pre decision comments and explanation.

Decision – The Township of Langley acted improperly and Township of Langley Heritage Alteration Permit No. 100685 is set aside. Justice Groves also awarded costs!

Sitting in that B.C. Supreme Court court room was quite an experience.  It could not help but open one’s eyes to what due process is all about and what we have been missing in the Township of Langley.

The first half day heard legal counsel for the Petitioner, Roy J. Stewart Q.C., deal with a number of questions from the Judge as well as laying out their case, the last half of the first day was his (the Petitioner’s) summary of their case. Today was the response from the Respondent’s legal counsel Daniel R. Bennett (Bull Houser & Tupper LLP) followed up by a response from Roy J. Stewart QC and finally the decision of Justice Groves.

The presentation of the Petitioner’s case was bang on and let light shine in on how illegitimate this process was. The sad reality is, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Now as I recall, this illegitimate process of approval was prompted by members of Council against the wishes of a Planning Department staff report.

So who is responsible – Here is a start:

• On Council – Mayor Froese, Kim Richter, Grant Ward, Charlie Fox, Bev Dornan, Bob Long, Steve Ferguson and Michelle Sparrow
• On Staff – CAO Mark Bakken and Manager Engineering and Community Development Ramin Seifi
• Eric Woodward with Kurt Alberts as a key supporter!

OH By the way – Congratulations to David Davis for being the only responsible member of our Township Council, well done!!

I can tell you, sitting in the gallery and listening to the arguments from the Township of Langley legal counsel, I was having a flash back to discussions I was privy to internally during my three years as Mayor. I was opposed then and I am now to the Township of Langley Council and bureaucracy’s arrogance about what they think they have the right to do. The court was having it explained to it by Township legal counsel that today’s Judicial Approach equated to a more “Generous Approach to Municipal Powers”. I am not convinced, given the decision, that the Justice was impressed with that argument.

Just an FYI – Be prepared for the counter response by all parties mentioned above. Nothing would surprise me relative to actions to proceed in one way or another. Stay tuned!

RG

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

Why are our local media so willing to go along with the corporate line from the Township of Langley and its lawyers, especially when it appears to be so wrong or at the very least very questionable, without the slightest hint of any challenging questions?

Langley Township “respects” ruling of privacy commissioner… so says the Langley Times!

Now if that isn’t dancing on the head of a pin, I don’t know what is!

After reading this latest epistle in today’s Langley Times which in my view is a feeble attempt to set the record straight, I am not sure if I have a greater feeling of despair for the taxpayers of the Township of Langley or anger at our council, senior staff and their legal counsel? For three years I had first-hand experience at the agility of the Township senior staff and their legal counsel to rationalize and defend their actions and selling it to members of council. The most interesting observation of that experience is how willing members of council were to fall into line. Not one of them (Davis excluded) has a mind of their own.

I have a copy and have reviewed and read the petition submitted by the Petitioner – The Corporation of the Township by Bull Housser & Tupper LLP. Just for the hell of it, let’s review the three points below. I offer a reasoned argument against the statements (legal speak) made to or by the Langley Times.

Consider….

OH so many questions to the points that follow left unanswered by the Langley Times…. Here are just a few –

1. “…. the documents were provided to de Raadt to show “respect” for the commissioners decision while the legal action was launched because the Order could set a problem-creating precedent if it is allowed to stand”. WHAT!!!

Response – If you respected the commissioners decision there would be no Court Petition filed. What possible precedent could this set? They state “among other things”? That is a catch all phrase until they can think of something else to throw against the wall! They state “It would be difficult for the municipality to keep it’s position secret during bargaining with outside contractors”. Come on you guys, where did you dig that up from? What possible affect could the work done by a private contractor for a private development company have on the Township bargaining with outside contractors? Talk about trying to rationalize a position, what a stretch!

1. Goulden (Township’s lawyer) goes on to say “We’re not trying to keep them (the Athenry documents) a secret”. WHAT!!!

Response – If you are not trying to keep them secret why the denial of the FOI request in the first place? Obviously you are trying to keep them a secret because of your statement above re a precedent, which is nothing but a smokescreen.

1. Goulden says, the court action was not a lawsuit directed against either de Raadt or the commissioner, but a petition requesting the court rule on an “important” issue raised by the order. WHAT!!!

Response – Why is Jacob de Raadt named in this petition? He was nothing more than a citizen requesting information that was being denied. He followed his rights to appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. For taking advantage of his rights he gets to be named a Respondent in a Petition filed by the Township. As this action states “Orders, including orders granting the relief claimed, may be made against you, without any further notice to you, if you fail to file the Response to Petition within the time for Response.”

Part 1 ORDERS SOUGHT (The following is abbreviated)

The Petitioner, the Corporation of the Township of Langley (the Township) seeks:

1. A declaration that the Township is entitled to withhold drafts of contracts…..
2. The Order to release the documents be quashed….
3. An order extending the automatic 120 day stay of the Order……
4. Costs; and
5. Such further relief and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

So in summary, I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one BUT any Petition to the Courts that singles out an individual for exercising their democratic rights and incorporates the term “costs” and “relief” under Orders sought I have serious concern with, as should all taxpayers. By being named as a Respondent to this Petition is Mr. de Raadt required to attend the proceedings with a lawyer? (Cost to him) At the very least it would require him to seek legal advice to respond to this action. (Cost to him)

Does this whole thing not smack of intimidation gone wild? Add this to the new rules of the Council Chamber making your house a silent sterile environment, the banning of Jacob de Raadt from Council Chambers, the banning of residents surrounding Athenry from communicating to TOL staff and Council members. So what is next, a special pass to allow you to view Council proceedings? It is frankly obscene!

Important – Is this what you voted for? Where is our local press in being the conscience of the residents of the Township and City of Langley? Are editorial or journalistic decisions made with one eye on the significant weekly Township communications budget?

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

The lack of quality reporting continues to be a major problem in the Township of Langley and you have to ask the question why? Regarding the Athenry Development / Jacob de Raadt issue – Who did this reporter talk to or more important, who fed this misinformation to the local press? This kind of garbage put into the public domain as fact is frankly disgusting.

I have written about this travesty three times on this BLOG, on February 4^th, March 11^th and April 24^th 2013. In my opinion the Athenry Development will go down as the biggest injustice done to neighbors of any development that I have had any familiarity with over my many years in local politics. It was and is just wrong. Here is a recap –

First a little history on the Athenry Gate Development – During the week of Nov. 22^nd, 2010, I became aware of an agenda item (for Athenry Developments) scheduled for a “Development Permit” Public Hearing on Monday November 29^th, 2010. This had received 1^st and 2^nd reading, public hearing and 3^rd reading (conditional approval) in June of 2008 prior to my election as Mayor. In doing my due diligence in preparation for the upcoming Public Hearing, I researched this project and its history, through a variety of Staff Reports. I was frankly shocked in finding the project that was proposed and given the appropriate readings, including Public Hearing bore no resemblance, in my opinion, to what was before us at Development Permit Stage and 4^th and final reading.

Changes can only be made after 3^rd reading in Form, Character and Design.

These changes in my opinion did not meet that standard and I stated that in a meeting I had with the CAO prior to the Council Meeting. Staff claimed the changes were covered under form, character and design, which I did and still do totally disagree with.

The original June 2008 approved project was for one building located roughly in the center of the property while the 2010 version was for three, four story apartment buildings plus a two story office building and a Cultural Center.

This change impacted all surrounding private homes severely with a dramatically reduced set back, increased height of buildings and close imposition immediately next to surrounding homes. How high and how close? On the plans there was a large condominium building estimated to be about 50 – 60 feet high, less than twenty feet from their back fence. With these dramatic changes to the project there were a number of serious concerns not the least of which was the issue of drainage given the potential for flooding of surrounding homes.

How would you like to be made aware of this after you moved in? Prior to buying and moving in to your dream home an entirely different development had been explained to you by the planning department at the hall. NEW home owners deserve to be given the facts about surrounding zoning and development and planned changes BEFORE proceeding with a home purchase.

In my opinion and experience this was and is a travesty that happened to local hard working taxpayers. (NOTE – The affected residents had launched legal action but withdrew without giving up their right for taking action in the future.) Due to their position they have been denied access to speak directly to councilors (They must go through Township lawyers) about ongoing problems with the development that has so dramatically affected their quality of life and home values!

For any residents reading this and wondering what their reaction might be IF they were in the same position? I know of one resident who has sold their dream home that backed onto Athenry; it has cost them about $100,000. This has been verified by local real estate representatives.

So if anyone reading this BLOG Post figures on this being an exaggeration of the impact of this development or the facts of the case, do yourself a favor and drive by the just moved Willoughby Hall and check out the NEW 5 story (4 on top of a ground level parking garage) Condominium building that is just being finished which abuts these homes. Now you tell me that there is nothing wrong with that? Just put yourself in their shoes?

So back to the Langley Times – Where do they get their information? Here are the facts!

Yes, interestingly enough this is the same Jacob de Raadt who was subject to a number of complaints by this council and banishment from Township Council Chambers!

Jacob de Raadt filed a Freedom of Information Request (FOI) with the Township of Langley to obtain copies of all versions of the storm water management plan for the Athenry Development. He was denied that information through FOI, that part is true.

As is his right and that of any other citizen of the Province of British Columbia, he, acting on behalf of his clients filed an appeal request of the FOI denial through to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia as he objected to being denied what he thought were documents he had the right to view. His appeal through the Privacy Commissioner was detailed, thorough and complete. The B.C. Privacy Commissioner took the complaint and passed it on to their adjudicator Elizabeth Barker who took some considerable time to view and consider all of the information provided by both sides and she released her decision dated July 24^th 2013.

The lengthy and detailed decision and the reasons for it are available on the “Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner” web-site her conclusion is –

“For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to s. 58 of FIPPA, I make the following orders:

1. Langley is not authorized by s. 12(3)(a) of FIPPA to refuse to disclose the original and the four subsequent revisions of the storm water management plan.
2. Langley must give the applicant a copy of original and revisions 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the storm water management plan, on or before September 6^th, 2013. I also require Langley to copy me on its cover letter to the applicant, together with a copy of the records.”

So the decision and all of this seems relatively straight forward, correct? NOT in the Township of Langley! The Township of Langley in a letter to Mr. Jacob de Raadt dated August 20^th, 2013 from Township’s Bull Housser lawyer Mr. James Goulden advised, “on behalf of the Township seeking a judicial review of the Order in the near future. In those proceedings, the Township will be asking the court to overturn the Order.”

So the Township being the Township, why stop there (with the Order) let’s spend more money on lawyers which in my view is bad enough. NOW the kicker, where the Langley Times misinformed the public and a couple of intriguing questions to ask yourself:

1. The Township of Langley is seeking to have the order to release the documents overturned? Excuse me! THEY RELEASED THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AS ORDERED TO ONE JACOB de RAADT. So, NO Langley Times, they have released the documents as ordered but at the same time are appealing their release through the courts. What you say? Only in the Township of Langley. Why spend a few dollars on legal bills when you have an open ended budget using tax payer dollars!
2. Why was Jacob de Raadt named in this Judicial Review? Yes he sought clarification which surely is anyone’s right in our democracy, BUT it was the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that investigated, conducted the review and issued the decision and Order. The Township’s argument, IF they have one, is with the others named on the Petition namely The Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia and the Attorney General of British Columbia NOT Jacob de Raadt. This couldn’t have anything to do with their fight with Mr. de Raadt could it? Just asking the question?
3. A fair question would now be, is this the Township’s new strategy? That is to force anyone who applies for information through an FOI request, is denied and appeals successfully to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to challenge that decision through a Judicial Review? Forcing tax payers into court to defend themselves against what has to be considered their basic democratic rights? Is this another way of saying, or a shot across the bow to anyone who is attempting to get the truth? What is happening in the Township? Is this what you want out of your local government?
4. The Langley Times states the Township of Langley is suing over the FOI request. NO, Langley Times, the Township of Langley is petitioning the Court requesting a Judicial review of the decision and the Order of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. So, Jacob de Raadt is named in the Petition for a Judicial Review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision, not his FOI request. All of this because a taxpayer exercised their democratic rights? Shame!

In summary, I am not sure who is running this municipality but IT IS NOT Mayor and Council. However, Mayor and Council are complicit in everything that is going on in the Township of Langley by their actions or more important their inactions! So where are we at as a community? Does something have to happen to you personally before you will be responsive and fight back? This Mayor and Council are worse than the Council of Kurt Alberts, IF that is possible.

I know it is nice to see members of Council get along with very little show of disunity and I know it is hard to understand that just because a Council is united in the majority of their decisions (minus a dissenting voice in the back ground ie David Davis) –

“IT DOES NOT MAKE THE MAJORITY DECISION CORRECT !!!”

In my opinion it all but makes Council decisions suspect!

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

In my previous post, I outlined the individuals involved, their connections and the facts surrounding the whole issue of Fort Langley Heritage By-Laws; how and why they were strengthened and by who in 2004. Amazingly, the who of the past, are all of those involved in creating this EDIFICE to a guy named Eric Woodward who apparently believes that the rules apply to everyone BUT him. The problem with all that is that the majority of council seem to be eating his dirt (see sod turning) or drinking the same bathwater, whichever metaphor you wish to choose!

Well, all of that aside, the fight continues with Eric Woodward and Kurt Alberts dragging all of those within earshot out for a photo-op and sod turning. Now they claim to have an excavation permit but DO NOT have a building permit; only in the Township does the Council majority come out en masse for a photo-op on a project that doesn’t have a building permit!

So despite this fact of life (on any other development a building permit would be considered important) Mayor Jack Froese and Councilors Kim Richter, Grant Ward, Charlie Fox, Bev Dornan and Michelle Sparrow attended the sod turning. One has to wonder where the other two members of council were who have supported this outrage, namely Bob Long and Steve Ferguson – is it possible they got lost on the way to the celebration or non-event?

So let’s take a step back and ask ourselves why has this become such a major HOT BUTTON and divisive issue? Whether or not you support this project, I cannot urge you strongly enough to consider the following. Regardless of personalities and personal likes and/or dislikes of individuals involved consider whether you believe municipal development rules should apply differently depending on your wealth, connections and/or property holdings? Consider the following –

• Treating everyone equally? – When you moved to Fort Langley or anywhere in the Township for that matter, did you not expect your elected Mayor and Municipal Council to follow and enforce the Official Community Plan (OCP), Neighborhood Plans and Zoning By-Laws that are in place? If there was to be a change did you not expect they would follow due process in making any changes i.e. New By-Laws (four readings) which would include a Public Hearing to inform the taxpayer and allow a legal opportunity for input?

It has become painfully obvious that there has been a questionable change of rules through a Heritage Alteration Permit. Is that legitimate? I have contacted many in the planning field and without exception they state this must have to go through a public rezoning process. Let’s not forget Jack Froese’s public comment on the result and outcome of Public Hearings. (Pete McMartin Column / Van. Sun)

• Density Increase? – It is interesting when you look at the Township response to the court petition specifically to the question of density increase. The Township adamantly insists it is not an increase in density.

Not an increase? Let’s put it into simple common sense language and compare apples with apples – (A lot of numbers but think about it?)

• Old IGA plus Old Hardware building – 13,977 sq. ft. (approx.)
• NEW Coulter Berry Building (no underground) – 43,755 sq. ft.
• Increase in square feet and percentage increase – +29,778 sq. ft. 213%

• Permissible square footage (current zoning/no undergrnd) – 19,324 sq. ft.
• NEW Coulter Berry Building (no underground) – 43,755 sq. ft.
• Increase in square feet and percentage increase – +24,431 sq. ft. 126%

Put it another way, the application for the NEW Coulter Berry Building including underground parking is 65,918 sq. ft. vs. the old allowable square footage (current zoning) of 19,324 sq. ft. an increase of +46,594 sq. ft. 241%.

Despite the obvious common sense facts (above) that show much more than a substantial density increase; the owner in conversation with some, has admitted to an increase in density as well as the fact he promotes the need for density increase on his Facebook page by posting Vancouver newspaper clippings.

After all of this the Township continues to say it isn’t a density increase?

If you read the above numbers carefully it makes the case against this development in spades, however numbers can be glossed over. I would encourage all those who are interested to go down to Fort Langley and talk to the “Hands on Heritage Group” for a vivid picture on what we are talking about. It is an eye opener.

So what are we to conclude? Council thinks the residents are too stupid to understand?

• Missing documents? – When reviewing the Petition Application, the responses and subsequent Affidavits regarding the Development Application Form there were a few items missing which MUST be included. The Development Application Form carries with it a page entitled “Development Application Requirements”. For Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Multi-Family Residential and Comprehensive Development they provide a list of about 10 items that are required.

On the Development Application Form under Application Submission Requirements it states “Items listed are required at time of application submission. If any of the required documents listed below are not included, the application will not be accepted.” I guess it failed to say except Eric Woodward?

Aside from a couple of missing items the key missing document is –

Item K “Letter of Intent – Detailing the proposal including name/type of business and number of employees.”

It was missing. Now how do you spell density increase? Pretty convenient item to miss despite the fact the TOL says it must be submitted but it wasn’t which by TOL rules it WILL NOT be accepted!

• Incorrect information? – The community brought to the attention of the Township that the developer had supplied incorrect information regarding the existing hardware building. This incorrect information was very important in that including the square footage of the two unlawful buildings it had impact on the calculations for space in the new building.

To be clear quoting from a James Goulden (BHT Lawyer) email to a Mr. Harold Whittell states “We acknowledge that the developers initial floor area calculations for the Frontier Hardware building wrongly included the two unlawful storage structures which had already been removed from the Development lands. However, the Developer’s latest floor area calculations now exclude those two unlawful storage structures, and the Township has proceeded on the basis of the corrected figures.”

The Township subsequently verified that the allegations were correct. The correct process should have been to have the developer “amend” the plans and then have them brought before the same “process” as the original application. The review by council or public process was not done.

• The developer caught out – The developer was still trying to claim the gross floor area of the two unlawful storage buildings AFTER he was caught out.

The admission (above) was only after the community had to go about proving that they were actually GONE and what they looked like before demolition. Who was responsible for submitting the original plans which included the square footage of the two unlawful buildings?

So where does it go from here? The next stop is the B.C. Supreme Court Application for a Judicial Review filed by the “Society of Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development” on September 9^th in Chilliwack.

In my view this issue is symptomatic of a much bigger issue in the Township of Langley. It speaks to the very reasons I ran for Mayor and the very reason I will continue to shine a light on the goings-on in development and property deals throughout our community.

I can tell you despite what you may have been told about me, (there was a good deal of character assassination) I lived up to what I said I would do in office and we accomplished a lot. Most important, I do not apologize. Anybody with any reasoned amount of life experience could not serve three years in the Mayor’s office and not connect the many dots. It was a steep learning curve about what really goes on, that is what drives me to expose the wrong doing in our community.

So I was ecstatic when this citizen group stepped forward and put their money where their mouth is. There is nothing for them to gain personally other than standing up for the community in which they live. The name calling, intimidation, bullying and more aimed at those in support of this legal action is beyond the pale, Stop and ask yourself THE very key simple question from both sides of the issue – who is gaining anything personally from this action? It certainly is not the members of this society – now Eric Woodward, Kurt Alberts and the other hangers on, that is for you to decide. We owe these citizens a big thank you; remember this initiative has come at a significant financial cost to all of them, no benefit other than protecting their community!

A Special message to Council members – While there is no secret about our past relationship I want to urge each and every one of you to dig down and have the courage to come forward asking for a sober second thought. Surely, you can’t believe that this is a positive addition to Fort Langley. The mass of this building is completely inappropriate within Fort Langley in the context of the OCP and surrounding properties.

There is NO second chance, once a building permit is issued you will have changed the character, the look, the density and the heritage of Fort Langley FOREVER! This is not overstating the issue. Remember it is the Birthplace of B.C. and we all have a moral responsibility to protect the values that so many residents have put into this community. Do you want this outrage to form a part of your elected record and what you will be remembered for?

All of us taxpayers and residents of the Township of Langley, not just Fort Langley, can only hope each one of you will search your conscience and do the right thing. As I said earlier, a sober second thought would be a great place to start!!! Do it now, before it is too late!

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

How is it possible that Council passed the Statewood application for the Coulter Berry building which did not comply with the OCP or the Heritage Conservation area, was turned down by TOL staff in Heritage and Planning, and had a 950 name petition against it (only 2,500 in Fort Langley) and 2 to 1 Public Hearing speakers against… It was passed 7-1 WHAT?

OH I forgot, Mayor Froese doesn’t make decisions based on Public Hearing results or petitions, in his own words, he has to consider all of those who don’t attend? What? They are all in favor of the project? Mayor Froese and all of his councilors (except David Davis who doesn’t fit in with this group) should be called to account! So we continue with these phony, contemptible public hearings that are being offered as an excuse for public consultation? Members of our Municipal Council don’t know the meaning of the word “consultation”, nothing has changed. I said during the election campaign that Jack Froese as Mayor would be Kurt Alberts LIGHT, which is exactly what he has been. What is that saying Jack and Kurt, “Just go with the process”. Isn’t another way of putting that; make it appear like we care? It is interesting having the benefit and convenience of text messaging during meetings, isn’t it?

• Before we get into the facts of this issue, you have to understand the lay of the land ie Whos who? The kicker! “Connect the Dots” – Eric Woodward is the owner of the Coulter Berry building and owner of a substantial property portfolio in Fort Langley, a Township of Langley appointee to the Heritage Advisory Committee, a Township of Langley appointee (Co-Chair) of the Community Participation, Infrastructure and Environment Advisory Committee, President of the Fort Langley BIA, fellow resident with Jack Froese in Bedford Landing, and a donor of $2,000 to Jack Froese in the last election! OH I forgot, Eric Woodward’s consultant for this project is Kurt Alberts, a former Mayor and supporter of Mayor Jack Froese in the last election. Very strong supporters of Eric Woodward’s efforts, aside from the majority of the current and past council supporters are former councilors Howie Vickburg and Jordan Bateman (all strongly connected to and sat under Kurt Alberts as Mayor). Isn’t it interesting how that works?  

It is important to note that three other builders adapted their new buildings in Fort Langley to the OCP. Why Special Treatment? Only in the Township of Langley you say! Are you surprised?

(I came back from holidays early to report further on the facts!)

A good deal of investigation was needed to present some interesting facts that the average taxpayer should know with respect to this issue – It is interesting reading and should be worthy of considerable concern to taxpayers. Please Read On….

On June 7, 2004 a report was presented to council, file # 04-150 prepared by Paul Crawford who is STILL the Long Range Planner for the Township of Langley.

It is a report that recommends an amendment to BY-Law 2500 – Section 104.5 covering height of buildings in Fort Langley’s Heritage Conservation Area. The amendment was to strengthen the wording to offer stronger protection against developments that would try to circumvent the bylaw and build above 29.5 feet or two stories.

On August 23^rd of 2004 at a regular evening meeting of council, bylaw 4292 (report 04-150) was brought forward for final adoption.  Councilor Howie Vickberg moved it and councilor Kim Richter seconded the motion. It was carried unanimously by the mayor and ALL council members. The mayor at the time was Kurt Alberts, and in addition to Kim Richter who seconded the motion, present councilors, Bob Long, Grant Ward and Steve Ferguson all voted in favor of this bylaw amendment to strengthen the height restrictions in Fort Langley

Fast forward to today. Kurt Alberts is now a spokesperson for the 43.5 foot Coulter Berry development, gushing over its virtues. Ex councilor Howie Vickberg is a regular commentator on the “We support Coulter Berry Face Book site”, he has taken it upon himself to applaud the Coulter Berry Development, while slamming the people trying to defend the very bylaw he brought forward on August 23, 2004. Unusual, yes, anywhere but in the Township – Does it appear that all that matters in the Township is, who is the proponent and what is their connection? You can’t make this stuff up.

You have to wonder, why only 9 years later, six of the people that brought in this added protection are now in favor of allowing a building that is 43.5 feet high and will tower over every existing building in the same area?

By-Law 2500, section 100, administration height of buildings and structures, 104.5. (2 stories / 29.5 feet). Noted beside 104.5 are By-Laws #3205 and #4292, both amendments passed to strengthen the wording. This IS NOT a guideline, IT IS a bylaw that was put in place specifically to preserve the heritage character of Fort Langley. It is important to note that Township planning staff still very much support this bylaw, as witnessed by the report to council by senior planner Chris Laing in his report to council on the Coulter Berry development. Township staff was not in favor of the Coulter Berry project proceeding as presented. The report stated this clearly several times.

Other interesting facts? The Face Book support site for the development headlines a quote from Robert Inwood extolling the heritage virtues of the development. The site further states that Mr. Inwood is the “author” of the Fort Langley heritage guidelines. Now let us get the facts straight, to say the least they are playing fast and loose with the truth. The authorship of the guidelines was a collaboration of Mr. Inwood and many others, including Donald Luxton, Fred Pepin, Tom Annandale, Grace Muller, Bays and Bob Blackhall, Alice Johnson, Gloria Doubleday, Elaine Horricks and so many other dedicated heritage people. I am sure Mr. Inwood would be embarrassed to hear that he is given such lofty credit for the guidelines that were put together combining several studies, beginning in the mid-eighties with input from so many dedicated people.

The Kicker – The important part and what is not stated is that Mr. Inwood was hired by the developer sometime after the council meeting of November 19^th, 2012. Is there anything wrong with that, no, but in light of the fact they are using his name in promotion, it is a fact they should not be silent on. Extolling the virtues of his development is an opinion, his opinion, nothing more. It isn’t an independent opinion. So the fact that Mr. Inwood might be pleased with his own work should not be a surprise. However, it is also important to point out that none of Mr. Inwood’s work changed the height, form, rhythm, scale or sheer mass of the building.

Not being a planner or engineer, it has been difficult for me to understand how the sheer size, form and overall mass of the Coulter Berry building has not increased the density of use of this lot, as is claimed, so consider the following:

• The land in question is 24,156 square feet.
• With the existing zoning in place, lot coverage (with underground parking) allows a maximum 60% of lot coverage.
• Given By-law 2500, height section 104.5 that limits any building to two stories, the math allows a TOTAL building size of 28,987 square feet.
• Lot coverage of this proposal covers 67%
• The Coulter Berry Development is over 44,000 square feet
• Plus 22,163 square feet of underground parking /amenity area.
• Allowable density is a mathematical calculation of space for the building density allowable.
• It is quite clear that if the above mathematical calculation holds true, the Coulter Berry building is much larger than the existing bylaws and zoning would allow.
• Coulter Berry received a setback relaxation to allow it to encroach on the neighboring property (Beatniks Restaurant) to within nine INCHES of their building.

With the mixed use proposed for this development and by looking at plans on the developer’s website, the following info clearly shows not only a density increase, but a significant density increase.

• This same parcel of land housed the old Fort Hardware store and the old IGA building before it burned down.
• It would be fair to assume that the Hardware building would have had a total of 4 toilets. The IGA would likely also have had a total of 4 toilets for a total of 8 on this property.
• Based on the drawings on the developer’s website, the Coulter Berry building has a total of 41 toilets and 2 urinals. Somehow this alone would equate to a density of use increase to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

The most controversial and often “misinformed” part of this development is the parking concerns. Without debating the history as to why developments in Fort Langley are only required to provide half of the commercial parking than in other areas of Langley, only the actual facts relating to this development will be discussed.

From the TOL report and the developer’s website, the following can be confirmed.

• The development if built anywhere else in a C-2 zone in Langley would require 144 parking spots.
• Due to the aforementioned peculiarity of Fort Langley, the requirements are cut down to a total of 67 parking spots. The developer is providing 67 spots.
• However and BUT– it is important to note that of the 67 spots, 30 of them are for the specific use of the tenants of the building. They are behind gates and fencing, not for public use.
• Of the remaining 37 spots, 3 are designated as “carpool” only.
• That leaves a net of 34 spots total, 25 underground and 9 surface spots for ALL of the customers of a large 5,000 plus sq.ft.  2 level restaurant plus a mezzanine, 9 retail shops and 10 plus offices.

With only a net 34 real public parking spots added (not 67 as they like to promote), the already parking shortfall in Fort Langley will be worse, not better. This building, if it manages to find tenants due to lack of parking, will compound the problem. The developer also states that each of the commercial retail units (CRU) on the first floor have “stubbed water and drainage so that any CRU can accommodate a kitchen”. Imagine the increased “density of use” if even half of these CRU’s become coffee shops, juice bars, bakery’s, or sandwich shops. The number of employees and visitors would exponentially increase the density of use.

As I said at the start, this development was not supported by Township of Langley planning staff. It was not supported by the Township of Langley Heritage Advisory Committee. It was not supported by the Langley Heritage Society, a non- governmental society whose only purpose is to protect the community’s heritage interests. Furthermore a petition was signed by over 950 people opposing the development. Important to note that over 600 of them had/have Fort Langley address’s.

With all this in mind, it is hard to understand why the mayor and council would not listen to the many voices that asked for a compromise on the development for it to adhere to the existing bylaws, heritage guidelines and the community’s wishes, like everyone else.

It is time for the community to stand up for Langley and let the mayor and council know that they are our representatives, and should be acting responsibly on our behalf. If the mayor is listening to his version of the “silent majority”, maybe it is time he hears the very real actual VOCAL MAJORITY that is not happy with so many poorly made council decisions being made since they took office.

Well, this proposal was approved, but the fight is not over. – While I am dead against this Mayor and Council who have made an art form out of ignoring the public (you know, those of us that vote and pay property taxes) it is important to know the facts before you draw a conclusion. That is why I have presented the facts that came from my investigation.

In my opinion we are very fortunate because we have some residents within us that have shown the will to say NO WAY, certainly not without a fight against wrong doing! The fight is on!

The “Society of Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development” has launched a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia under the “Judicial Review Procedure Act” requesting Supreme Court approval for an injunction and court proceeding to hear arguments and render a decision, hopefully favorable to the opinion of the majority in the Township of Langley. This Supreme Court Judicial Review application is scheduled to be heard in the Chilliwack Supreme Court, 46085 Yale Rd. Chilliwack B.C. at 10:00 AM Sept. 9^th.

This group has put their money where their mouth is despite and in the face of abuse, bullying, name calling and much much more. This abuse is not surprising to me. I experienced three years of bullying, intimidation and character assassination tactics for which I was not going to capitulate. In this case it is coming from the obvious corner of special interest, by a few individuals who are showing themselves as the classless individuals they are in the face of this community opposition. It is unfortunate that there are some in our society that still don’t understand that you can agree to disagree.

It must be made very clear and it was in a recent definitive Langley Times article, these people have stressed they ARE NOT against development! They are asking for municipal by-laws, processes procedures and decisions to be recognized and adhered to, not attacked and changed through feeble and unwarranted variances whenever it suites the wishes of a chosen few!

Isn’t all of this wonderful in a democratic society? Here we go again; the so-called establishment of special interests in the Township expects everyone to fall into line.

Well, finally we have those within us that are saying no way, not without a hell of a fight!

Unknown to most, this type of back room activity is not unusual in the Township. It is and has been the norm for many years. I would ask anyone reading this to investigate the facts for yourself, ask those directly involved, get active in your community to stop this insult to taxpayers. It has to stop!

As this very true saying goes:

“If you don’t stand for something, you will stand for anything”

We have stood for anything for far too long in our community!!!!

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

TO All Members of the Metro Vancouver Parks Committee:

On behalf of all users of Campbell Valley Park I want to sincerely thank all members who voted against the proposal to reactivate the Langley Speedway. I am confident that IF Metro wishes help or input from the grassroots to flesh out ideas for generating revenue there are many resources available to assist.

Thank you again

Rick Green

Township of Langley

To ALL Metro Vancouver Parks Committee Members: I hope all of my former colleagues are doing well!

I am following up my earlier email and langleywatchdog.com BLOG Post on the proposal to reopen the Langley Speedway in Campbell Valley Park offering my initial thoughts on the proposal and presentation by Murray Jones of the Historical Speedway Society. There is a very real lesson here in the move by Metro to agree to the designation of “Historical” under the guise of them agreeing NOT TO reactivate the track back in 2006. Gosh (could use much stronger words) it has only taken them 7 years and here they are cap in hand asking for it to be reactivated. What is that saying, give them an inch and they will take a mile! I sincerely hope many have learned from this experience, I just hope that mistake hasn’t severely cost us by destroying this GEM of a park for years to come.

I have to admit that I am shocked that this proposal from the Speedway Society is or has gained the notoriety and/or consideration that it has, given the historical detail that has been provided by staff based on past actions from the Parks Committee and Metro Board. This proposal is so fundamentally wrong in so many ways it is hard to know where to begin. But here is just a start –

• The Historical Speedway Society is exactly that, historical with a very clear understanding that it would not be reopened.

• I would suggest that the investment that Metro Vancouver has made thanks in part  to proceeds by the Pacific Parkland Foundation was made with a clear understanding of the mandate given each park.

• The safety issue will, without a doubt, end up causing serious equine accidents in the park which will end up being litigated against Metro and member municipalities for years. This isn’t a threat it is a fact – Horses and Cars do not mix!!

• The cost of a comprehensive study will be significant as described by staff. Metro cannot accept that funding from the proponent, as much as we would all like that, to pay for this study due to the obvious – Perception of a conflict of interest which would put in question any final result.

• The proponents rambling about commitments and donations is exactly that, rambling. Until the commitment is in writing it means absolutely nothing.

• Imposing this track on the community with it’s traffic congestion and required road upgrades to mitigate these problems would be a serious financial burden. There is no clear financial return for Metro, which is supposed to be why this is even being considered, let alone funding to cover the significant costs to undertake this project. It is suggested that the required study could cost $500,000 of taxpayers money? Taxpayers have had enough, that should be clear to all concerned by now. This will be a NET COST!

I urge all of you to very seriously consider ALL of the presentations that have been made to you requesting that this proposal cease to be considered. The negative impact on the environment, noise pollution, effect on wildlife, naturalists, equine community, Pacific Riding for Developing Abilities and much more would destroy the decades of hard work to build what we have today. Why? It just doesn’t make any sense.

There are an ample number of other option (locations) in the lower mainland that all of those who say they are willing to come up with all this money can go and develop a facility that would meet their needs and standards. I am not against car racing, I am just in favor of common sense. Claiming to do it to make money for Metro Vancouver Parks is an absolute smokescreen, it is a ruse and has always been intended to be a ruse. It is what it is – an attempt to circumvent the previously agreed to policy, design and use agreement for Campbell Valley Park.

Please, just say NO!!!

Rick Green

As I have said in a previous post, Charlie Fox is THE most condescending individual I have ever met. His letter to the editor response / rebuttal to a previously written Langley Times Editorial (Tuesday June 25^th, 2013) that criticized the Township of Langley and Council for their ALR exclusion applications is beyond the pale.

NOTE: While often critical even I have praised this Frank Bucholtz editorial.

I was going to take the summer off, unless the Township or Council did something ridiculous, which seems to be a weekly occurrence. Well, as outrageous as the Aldergrove ALR exclusion proposal was, I am going to write on it in September, Fox’s groveling and feeble letter to the editor was just too much!

Well, let’s dissect his response – Fox states “What you have published today is false, misleading and biased” – “Your readers deserve the facts” – Great idea Charlie, when are you going to start using facts?

Charlie you are correct on one thing, The Tuscan Farm property was zoned one-acre lots prior to the advent of the Agricultural Land Reserve. But let’s tell the whole story – The Tuscan Farm Property along with the majority of land in the Salmon River Uplands was and still is zoned one acre lots pre ALR. So what?

As a side note – It is interesting that the previous owners of this property tried unsuccessfully to have it excluded from the ALR on a number of occasions. After reaching their limit of frustration, it was sold and low and behold the new owners were able to find quick access to ALR approval. Now who was on the ALR South Coast Panel that gave that approval? Not suggesting anything, just asking the question? How was this possible?

If we take Councilor Fox’s argument to it’s illogical conclusion we would take all of the Salmon River Uplands and approve it for housing! Previous and/or the existing zoning of land in the ALR has absolutely nothing to do with exempting that land out of the ALR. As far as Councilor Fox’s argument, that this is allowing the owner to bring the balance of his land back into production? What? So I guess Charlie we should develop every piece of ALR land for housing where a small part is located in a gully or a ravine or what, maybe something that is just a little inconvenient, under the premise that we will save adjoining agricultural land. What complete nonsense! Anyone that has an ounce of understanding of farming will know, if the land is not being farmed today or in the recent past, it is because the owners don’t want to farm it and more often than not they have an ulterior motive. OH and by the way Charlie, to actively farm you need the freedom to use legitimate farm practices along with access and egress WITHOUT being restricted by or bothered by an Urban environment. Ask the people of South Delta / Tsawwassen about the difficulty and impossible task they have in farming the Southlands, which is surrounded by housing! Is that what we are trying to do here?

As to the money and/or community benefits you say we will receive? Is that all it takes to get exclusion approval is to cut a cheque? Why is Council unwilling to manage their property assets properly and implement CACs within Urban Development Applications? This Council has repeatedly dismissed any idea of implementing these ideas. Unbelievable, but they are willing to use this as incentive to drag land out of the ALR?

The Wall Application! This application is absolutely off the charts. First it was conditionally approved in 2007 by the South Coast Panel of the ALR. This application was rejected a few times previously until their 2007 conditional approval. Who were the Commissioners on the South Coast Panel at the time of this approval? Just asking! This latest attempt to buttress it and combine the Wall application with the University District application is an attempt to get a private land deal approved thanks to the needs of Trinity University. It is an absolute affront to Trinity University, using their Application to serve the needs of some friends and insiders.

To the suggestion that we will now have a net increase of farmable lands? What an unmitigated joke. No Charlie, that farmland can be farmed as is. It doesn’t need traffic congestion surrounding it to be farmed. This doesn’t make farming easier, it makes it impossible!

Well, what can we say about the Aldergrove proposal – Given the actions of this council it is the tip of the iceberg. If Council really wants to help Aldergrove out and see that it is built out to it’s potential, try working on the greater Community Plan, try working with the business community on their Core Plan, start talking density (you have those options in the NEW Core Plan) unfortunately the majority of council are using the age old excuse of the need for development. Yes they need growth BUT you have all of the tools and developable land necessary, just get on with it and stop talking down to and insulting residents. I would suggest most residents, in my opinion, have forgotten more than you know!

In summary, I sincerely hope that the Metro Vancouver Board will hold this council’s feet to the fire and stop the insanity of their self-serving development within our community. (Serving who is the question?)

Back to my Summer Holidays – We are working on a number of intriguing posts, back the first of September!

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

We will be back in fighting spirit the first of September with a number of very interesting Posts which will give you plenty to pause and think about. From a behind the scenes look at the real politics in the Township of Langley, to what is fundamentally wrong with Translink (Transportation on the lower mainland) vs what is possible IF they had any kind of vision, to the financial dysfunction of the Township and much much more….. Stay tuned!!!

IF there are any significant developments with Council and/or their decisions between now and the end of July (their summer break), we will be back immediately!!

All the best

Rick Green

UPDATE – While it has been in the news a good deal in the last 24 hours we are thrilled to announce that Metro Vancouver stood firm in support of all residents of our region. This was not a left / right issue this is all about being a right / wrong issue. I am and always have been a staunch free enterpriser, but I don’t have blinders on and will not be like some of those in business that will always side with business despite any reasoned common sense.

Unfortunately out here in the Township of Langley our elected leaders are doing nothing but serving friends and insiders. While we are thrilled with the vote of the majority of Metro Vancouver Directors we are NOT thrilled but also NOT SURPRISED  by Councillor Bob Long’s vote (1 of 4) who supported this proposal. So out here in the Township of Langley, faced with an increase, from about 15 to 38 unit (12,000 foot) trains a day, we can now see that we have those in power Municipally who will have no problem sitting back and doing nothing but watching the destruction of our Municipality as we know it! I am still living in hope that one day there will be a recognition by the electorate of what is REALLY happening out here and will be willing to do something about it.

RG

__________________________________________________________________________________   

It is hard to imagine a more inappropriate use for this port facility in the virtual center of Metro Vancouver. Fraser Surrey Docks say there business is down by 75% due to it being a shallow draft port. With the greatest of respect, rescuing Fraser Surrey Docks at the serious health and quality of life expense of residents of the lower mainland is not a trade-off we want. Let us learn from experience! 

Let us start off with a little bit of history that I would bet nobody currently sitting on the Metro Board of Directors is aware of, (That includes Langley City and Township Directors) a bill of goods sold to the innocent people of the Township of Langley 45 years ago.

On September 24^th, 1968, Hunter Vogel MLA, emissary for the late Premier WAC Bennett, William Mearns President of B.C. Hydro and Mr. King and Mr. Martin of B.C. Hydro came to as Special Meeting of the Township of Langley Council with a very serious request. They explained the proposal to run a fly over rail line from Fort Langley up over Rawlison Crescent, onto the joint section (part of the Interurban Corridor) and continuing onto the new Roberts Bank Rail Corridor at Cloverdale through to the NEW Roberts Bank seaport. The Township Council was reassured by this delegation, in writing, that there would be one coal train a day each way. Quote “Mr. Martin stated that the trains will be one mile in length and there will be one train per day each way at a maximum speed of 35 miles per hour. It would take approximately two minutes for a train to cross any road.” That was it, guaranteed! (We have a copy of the meeting minutes)

For the record, WAC’s vision for Roberts Bank as a seaport was definitely a forward thinking and visionary move, unfortunately they missed the boat back in the day for a far more appropriate location for a rail line. This decision for a rail line was in direct contravention to the recommendations of the Lower Mainland Planning Board, which was fired by WAC Bennett for making their recommendation.

Well the Township and City of Langley now see 14 – 18 trains a day, (Coal and Container) up to 12,000 feet in length. Those trains take about 15 minutes to pass a given spot. Despite the 9 overpasses that are being built between Delta and the Township of Langley, there are NO overpasses at 200^th and the By-Pass and the By-Pass and Glover Road, the two heaviest congestion points. That is where it is today – with the expansion of Roberts Bank we will see 35 – 38 trains a day a few years from now. I have said many times before, in the future you will have two Langleys – one North of the Tracks and one South of the Tracks. It is all because nobody had a vision for the future and what the future was going to look like.

OH, and by the way, despite CN and CPs commitment to spray each train twice, once loading as well as once in Kamloops, I would suggest you ask anyone living in the Township and/or City within 100 yards of either side of the tracks and ask if they have a problem with coal dust? The Township of Langley has a Municipal Committee, the CP Community Advisory Committee that meets about four times a year. The issue of Coal Dust is brought up frequently due to resident complaints; the answer more often than not was there was an equipment break down in Kamloops, so they just let the trains pass. Residents of Chilliwack are severely aggravated by the dust from Coal Trains going through their community EVERY day! Coal dust is a serious issue and problem.

Talking to a prominent resident of the Township who just drove back from Calgary last week, he commented on seeing coal trains with this absolute cloud of coal dust that was visible above and on each side of the coal trains on their way to the coast.

So back to the proposal being considered by all of you this coming Friday, my point is very clear, you are not making a short term decision but one that will grow and expand exponentially. They openly admit to wanting to ship 4 million tonnes per year with room to grow to 8 million tonnes. Exponential growth beyond these numbers is a fact of life and history tells us that in spades – lets learn from it.

What is even more distressing is we are going through this process for U.S. Coal because it has already been rejected by a few locations across the border. Why would we do this to the City of White Rock (a Metro member), it’s citizens and summer tourism population, right on the waterfront? Why would we do this to the City of New Westminster situated so close to this activity? According to news reports the U.S. will be building two ports for this use, but they will not be open for about 8 – 10 years. Why are we going through this for a stop gap U.S. solution? What happens next? The number of jobs to be created are a drop in the bucket compared to other solutions for their economic problem.

I have heard a number of comments in the media from elected municipal/city representatives that it is not our decision (Municipal/City) but a Provincial and/or Federal decision? I absolutely beg to disagree; the Directors of Metro Vancouver have a fiduciary responsibility for air quality in the Lower Mainland. Everyone was up in arms over SE2 and the incinerator up the valley. So why are we even considering this proposal?

Despite and beyond the serious health / air quality issue how about trying something unique, SAY NO on the part of Metro Vancouver and send our senior levels of government and their agency a message. They can override your decision and approve it if they wish, but they do so at their peril. Let them the public know you are fighting for their best interests. They can take the heat if they overrode your decision. They would deserve it!

In the Township and City of Langley, thanks to the Social Credit Government who in 1988 sold the B.C. Hydro rolling stock and rails of the Interurban Corridor BUT had the foresight to protect passenger rights at no cost to the taxpayer. Thanks to this action we have a light at the end of the tunnel that would allow for a passenger service from Chilliwack through to Scott Road Station. This is due to an agreement that we forced renewal of (another 21 years) during my term as Mayor, 4 months before it would have been lost forever. CP and the Liberal Government were not at all happy with me, another anchor I am proud to carry! It is now up to a future Provincial Government to permit that passenger service which CP and CN would be contractually obligated to provide room for on that line. This would have the cause and effect of reducing heavy rail traffic on this corridor and provide for very low cost light rail passenger service, again from Scott Road Station through to Chilliwack.

It is long past time that our municipalities and cities have the courage to stand up to our senior levels of government and their agencies in cases that are demanded by our taxpayers. As I said earlier, IF a senior level of government wants to trample on decisions of local government, they do so at their peril. You don’t have to be complicit in their bad decisions.

On behalf of the residents of the lower mainland we urge you to vote against this proposal.

Good Luck in your deliberations

Rick Green

___________________________________________________________________

I am working on a few posts that have been asked for by readers – Interesting content to come, stay tuned.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.