Public Hearing / Bylaw No. 1646 (Z16-0004) – 967A Isabell Ave

CITY OF LANGFORD

BYLAW NO. 1646

A BYLAW TO AMEND BYLAW NO. 300, “LANGFORD ZONING BYLAW, 1999"

The Council of the City of Langford, in open meeting assembled, hereby enacts as follows:

A. Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300, 1999 is amended as follows:

1. By deleting from the R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) Zone and adding to the RS3 (Residential Small Lot 3) Zone the property legally described as LOT 9, SECTION 84, ESQUIMALT DISTRICT, PLAN 22027 PID No.: 003-290-727 (967A Isabell Ave) in the portions as shown shaded on Plan No. 1 attached to and forming part of this Bylaw.

2. By adding the following line to Table 1 of Schedule AD:

B. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Langford Zoning Bylaw, Amendment No. 458, (967A Isabell Ave), 2016".

READ A FIRST TIME this 18th day of July, 2016.

PUBLIC HEARING held this day of, 2016.

READ A SECOND TIME this day of, 2016.

READ A THIRD TIME this day of, 2016.

APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION this day of , 2016.

ADOPTED this day of , 2016.

MAYOR

(Certified Correct)
CORPORATE OFFICER

---

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

The City of Langford has received an application to amend Zoning Bylaw No. 300 by means of proposed Bylaw No. 1646. All persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed Bylaw will be afforded an opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the Bylaw at a Public Hearing. Please be advised that no representations may be received by Council after the close of the Public Hearing and any submissions made to Council, whether orally or in writing, will form part of a public record.

• Meeting Date: Monday, 15 August 2016
• Meeting Time: 5 pm
• Meeting Place: City Hall Council Chambers, Third Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue
• Subject Property: 967A Isabell Ave
• File: Z16-0004
• Bylaw Number: 1646

Official Community Plan

• Current: Neighbourhood
• Proposed: No Change

Zoning

• Current: R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential)
• Proposed: RS3 (Residential Small Lot 3)

Proposal
To permit the development of approximately 5 one-family residential lots.

COPIES of the complete proposed Bylaw and other material that the Council may consider in relation to the Bylaw may be viewed from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday (holidays excluded), from Tuesday, 2 August 2016 to Monday, 15 August 2016, inclusive, at Langford City Hall, 2nd Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, V9B 2X8. Please contact Julia Buckingham in the Planning Department at 250-478-7882 with any questions on this Bylaw.

Jim Bowden
Administrator

2016-08-02

---

Reader Photo / Community Notices

Reader Photo OF THE WEEK

Metchosin resident Mai Roach captured this beautiful view on a walk to Witty's Beach. If you've got a photo from the West Shore of people, places or things and want to share it with our readers, the Goldstream News Gazette can help you out with that. Every week, we publish our pick for Reader Photo of the Week. To have your photo considered for publication, simply email us a high-resolution .jpg copy to editor@goldstreamgazette.com. Please include your name, contact information including municipality of residence, where you took the photo and what you like about the image. Entries must be received by 5 p.m. Fridays to be included for consideration for the following week's paper.

Weekly winners will also be posted on the Gazette's Facebook page. Good luck!

---

Articles and Notices (selected extracts)

Vision
Healthy Eyes. Doctor. Delivered,
Dr. Brent Morrison, Dr. Jeffrey Thompson, Dr. Amanda Tawadros, Dr. Ann-Marie Stewart, and Dr. Chris Snow

Glass or plastic lenses
Once you have your prescription for eyeglass lenses there are a number of decisions you must make. Perhaps one of the most important is whether to have your corrective lenses made out of glass or plastic.

Today, in Canada, most spectacle lenses are made of plastic. Plastic lenses have improved so much over the last 20 years, that plastic has become the lens material of choice. If glass lenses are chosen it is imperative to get shatter resistant lenses. There is no such thing as shatter-proof glass. So, for occupations that require safety eyewear, glass is not acceptable. Plastic lenses can absorb much more punishment. Some plastic materials are extremely safe and therefore afford good protection in certain high risk occupations. Both glass and plastic can be made in "thin" or high index materials which are more practical for strong prescriptions.

Because plastic is softer than glass, there is a misconception that plastic lenses will scratch easily. This does not have to be the case provided proper care is taken. Elaborate cleaning measures are not necessary, just simple common sense precautions. Plastic lenses will not become scratched from normal use; they get scratched when exposed to abrasives. Today's scratch coatings make plastic lens surfaces very durable.

Ask your Optometrist about the different types of lens materials available for your prescription.

FYidoctors.
Forrric.rly SOUTH ISLAND OPTOMETRY
1910 Sooke Rd. 250-478-6811
www.fyidoctors.com

(Other church service listings and community notices omitted for brevity of reproduction but present in original pages.)

---

Additional Notice of Public Hearing (duplicate)

The City of Langford has received an application to amend Zoning Bylaw No. 300 by means of proposed Bylaw No. 1646. All persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed Bylaw will be afforded an opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the Bylaw at a Public Hearing to be held in the CITY OF LANGFORD COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Third Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, on Monday, 15 August 2016, at 5:00 pm. Please be advised that no representations may be received by Council after the close of the Public Hearing and any submissions made to Council, whether orally or in writing, will form part of a public record.

Proposal:
The purpose of Bylaw No. 1646 is to amend the City of Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300 by amending the zoning designation of the land that is the subject of Bylaw No. 1646 from the R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) Zone to the RS3 (Residential Small Lot 3) Zone to allow for the development of approximately 5 one-family residential lots.

Applicant:
Thomas J. Leahy

Location:
The land that is the subject of Bylaw No. 1646 is 967A Isabel! Ave as shown shaded on the plan.

COPIES of the complete proposed Bylaw and other material that the Council may consider in relation to the Bylaw may be viewed from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday to Friday (holidays excluded), from Tuesday, 2 August 2016 to Monday, 15 August 2016, inclusive, at Langford City Hall, 2nd Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue, Langford, BC, V9B 2X8. Please contact Julia Buckingham in the Planning Department at 250-478-7882 with any questions on this Bylaw.

Jim Bowden
Administrator

---

Letters / Editorial Excerpt (selected)

Regional commuter rail system could pay for itself

The Aug. 3 Goldstream News Gazette doubled down on its attack on commuter rail for the CRD. The front page article is confusing, given that the ICF and the E&N lines represent sub-optimal (at best) options for commuter rail from the West Shore to Victoria, Saanich and Sidney.

Both fall back on the oft-used argument that any deviation from the conventional norm of bigger and wider single-passenger vehicle, fossil-fuel dependent highway infrastructure "better have a strong economic plan."

I wonder what "bullet-proof economic plan" the McKenzie interchange has? At a cost of at least $85M, what return on investment do citizens in the West Shore hope to reap from this wonderful (and likely useless) interchange? How many big capital projects come in on budget in B.C.?

The business plan for the interchange is this: commuters on the West Shore are in for commuting hell starting this fall. They will bear the added cost of wasting their time in traffic jams heading into Victoria, across town to UVic or out to Sidney. It's funny that our wasted time never seems to make it onto balance sheets of these "business plans."

Commuters will bear the extra cost of filling their personal vehicles with gasoline at ever-volatile prices. Local businesses that need access to the roads during the day will bear the costs of having to wait longer as the construction drags on. Once the project is completed, commuters will identify new and interesting bottlenecks in the system, such as Quadra Street and MacKenzie, Spencer Road, Millstream Road and the Six Mile mess in View Royal. Yes, while the interchange will alleviate some of the westbound traffic slowdowns from the downtown and UVic areas, it won't take long until traffic piles up somewhere else.

The entire interchange is funded by taxpayers and will never directly remit a single cent to its costs (it is simply a road, after all). What a terrific business plan; get other people to pay for it.

Construction of a well-designed light rail transit commuter system, with logical stops beginning in Kettle Creek, through Westhills, but also from the Costco area, with connections in Colwood Corners, Royal Bay, into Victoria downtown, Cook Street Village, out to UVic and on to Sidney is a can't lose proposition.

A properly planned system — one that does not necessarily use the existing rail network — would accommodate the inevitable growth of the West Shore regions while reducing traffic on the roadways. It has a cost-recovery mechanism built-in; the ridership.

Perhaps, with matching funding from the feds and the province, as is the case with the McKenzie interchange project, any added tax burdens to residents could be offset by an ownership stake in the system. Once profitable, the LRT could even pay dividends to the original investors — all of us who chip in.

That's not to mention the costs savings in peoples' time not driving (or idling) into Victoria in personal or commercial vehicles and the litany of hidden expenses that go along. As well, the LRT should be made with Canadian manufactured steel and cars and installed by local workers.

We're way overdue to start thinking of alternatives to car commuting, other than building bigger, wider roads. If the E&N bureaucracy is impeding the conversation on LRT development, it should be shelved. But if it is willing to play a positive role, then it would be welcome as a stakeholder.

Eric Neilson
Colwood

---

(End of extracted content from pages 5–11.)