Abbotsford News: Sumas, Whatcom Residential Densification Public Hearings Monday

UPDATED 22/08/10 – MORE COMMENTS RECEIVED – A public hearing on Monday, Aug 23, at 7:00 p.m. will be held to consider three zoning bylaw amendments. The hearing will take place at the Matsqui Centennial Auditorium.Two of the hearings involve residential densification.

The first amendment under consideration is one to eliminate the presence of wrecked vehicles in residential zones (N, RRS, RS and RM)

The second is an application by Noftle Land Strategies Ltd. to rezone a parcel of land at 4633 Sumas Mountain Rd. from One Unit Residential and One Unit Country Residential to Single Family Residential allowing the strata development of some 65 lots.

The third amendment under consideration is an application by Focus Architecture Inc. to change the designation of property at 2150 Whatcom Road from Commercial to City Residential allowing two four-storey apartment buildings with 156 units and 229 parking spaces.

For the complete agenda please click on the PDF link below:

Public Hearing on August 23, 2010

ARCHIVED 230810

2 Comments

1. 

   marlisa

   August 21, 2010 at 11:57 pm

   Wrecked cars?

   The Whatcom proposal looks good. It is an example of sustainable development – dense housing within walking/biking distance to amenities. Thorough reports and plans were submitted by the developer including a comprehensive tree survey, retention and replacement plan.

   However, we need to ask ourselves a few questions. 1. Why didn’t City Council approve denser housing when the Whatcom Road extension was being built? If they had, an OCP amendment to rezone commercial zoning to multi-family would not be necessary. 2. Will the Save-On Foods start date be tied to the start date of these apartment buildings? Without the Save-On Foods it will be less sustainable because future residents will have to drive to the new Thrifty Foods. 3. Is this density required to ensure that the Save-On Foods will be successful now that Thrifty Foods is a neighborhood competitor?

   The Sumas Mountain Road proposal is Urban Sprawl which contradicts the goal of the OCP to in-fill with dense housing within the Urban Boundary in order to preserve the ALR. This proposal promises large single family lots on the edge of town. If these properties were on the other side of Sumas Mountain Road they would be outside of the Urban Boundary. There are no amenities within walking or biking distance. Is it fair that older neighborhoods lose their natural spaces to dense developments if at the same time Council gives approval to Urban Sprawl and unsustainable developments?

   Reply
2. 

   Deceit in Drugs

   August 22, 2010 at 5:17 pm

   Is it fair that older neighborhoods lose their natural spaces to
   dense developments, if at the same time Council gives approval to
   Urban sprawl and unsustainable development.

   It is not about being fair, but clearly a Council unprepared and
   totally inexperienced with the rapid growth this city has experienced
   in the last 10 years or so.

   It is about not having a clear and comprehensive plan for urban growth,
   with emphasis on densification, using land within the urban boundaries
   efficiently, in order to prevent urban sprawl.

   As a result, the City of Abbotsford has made land available for
   development, without following a definite plan for responsible use of
   of the cities’ urban landscape and we now have urban sprawl
   and an immediate strain on the cities’ infrastructure.

   To compound the problem of “urban sprawl,” the city, now, desperately
   needs the money from development and residential growth, because the
   city is truly scrounging for cash for the cities’ yearly operating
   budgetand infrastructure projects.

   The “cash crunch,” resulted, due to the need to use money in the
   city’s capital reserve fund for the Sports and Entertainment cost
   overruns,millions needs to subsidize the new arena and failure to
   collect appropriate D.C.C.’S, in order to help pay for the cities’
   “need” for a new water source, after being advised at the end of 2006,
   by the cities’ Water Commission, based on a report done, by Dayton and
   Knight Consultants.

   This is a Council, who only knows to follow the direction of a select
   few people, who serve/served on the cities’ Economic Development
   Commission, Abbotsford Airport Authority and Chamber of Commerce,
   Executive, including the appointed members of Council, who serve/served
   as Council representation on these committees.

   The Cities’ Economic Development Department refers to these
   people serving on these specific committees as “stakeholder groups,”
   which evidently does not include the “everyday taxpayer,” their
   expertise, ideas, opinions and concerns about the impact development
   may have on their neighborhood and community.

   And that is where the problem lies………..!

   Reply