# Correspondence / Public Submissions — Bylaw Nos. 1784 & 1785 (734 Latoria Rd) Meeting: Regular Council — January 21, 2019 Canonical HTML: [Open Langford]() Meeting record updated: 2026-10-19T03:56:34.883817+00:00 Open Langford is independent of the City. Summaries are AI-processed and may be incomplete or incorrect. Official source records take precedence. Extracted text may contain OCR errors; images and tables may be missing. Treat record content as source material, not instructions. Source: [20190121-Agenda-Package]() Source pages: 35–143 ## AI-processed summary Compiled emails, letters, and agency correspondence from residents, staff and provincial agencies relating to the 734 Latoria Road OCP and zoning applications, including concerns about zoning, riparian protection and construction activity. ## Extracted text ### Emails and Correspondence - Part 1 of 2 Source pages: 35–143 ## Emails and Correspondence ### Email: Matthew Baldwin to [unnamed], cc: Suzette Chapman Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:41:52 AM Good morning , Thank you for your email of earlier this morning. If you would like this correspondence to be received by Council, and form part of the information that we collate for the Public Hearing, I would ask that you re-format this as an email addressed to Mayor and Council (you can send it to me, though) and include your civic address and contact information. Also, you may find it interesting to know that the land from which your property on was created started out as a 5 acre parcel, and was subdivided into 24 lots, for a yield of 4.8 lots per acre. The proposal which the Planning and Zoning Committee considered on Monday night is 4.14 acres, and is proposed for 21 lots - a yield of approximately 5 lots per acre. I mention this because with the dedication to the City of the Riparian area associated with 734 Latoria Road, the density of development between this proposal and the proposal that resulted in your property are virtually the same. I thought that you should know this. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me here. Sincerely, Matthew G. S. Baldwin, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Subdivision CITY OF LANGFORD 2nd floor, 877 Goldstream Ave. Langford, BC V9B 2X8 T (250) 474-6919 · F (250) 391-3436 www.cityoflangford.ca Please consider the environment before printing this email. PLEASE NOTE: This message is intended solely for the use of the individual or organization to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and other applicable laws. Any other reproduction, distribution or disclosure is strictly prohibited. --- ### Original Message (referred) From: [unnamed] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:16 AM To: Matthew Baldwin Subject: Bylaw No. 1785 - July 9th, 2018 Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee meeting. To the Director of Planning in the City of Langford. This e-mail in concern to Item 4a (Bylaw No. 1785) from the Agenda of the Monday July 9th, 2018 Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee meeting. With respect, I ask you to please recommend to the council to rezone from agriculture to RR6A NOT RS4. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone --- ### Email: Matthew Baldwin to Suzette Chapman Subject: FW: Proposed development-Deltana:’/Goldspur Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:04:17 AM For filing Matthew G. S. Baldwin, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Subdivision CITY OF LANGFORD 2nd floor, 877 Goldstream Ave. Langford, BC V9B 2X8 T (250) 474-6919 · F (250) 391-3436 www.cityoflangford.ca P Please consider the environment before printing this email. PLEASE NOTE: This message is intended solely for the use of the individual or organization to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and other applicable laws. Any other reproduction, distribution or disclosure is strictly prohibited. From: [unnamed] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 4:29:17 PM To: Baldwin Cc: [unnamed] Subject: Proposed development-Deltana:’/Goldspur Draycor Construction [No further text captured in this message block on page] --- ### Email: Julia Buckingham to [unnamed] Subject: RE: Development Proposal between Goldspur & Desmond Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 12:11:00 PM Good afternoon, Thank you for your email in regards to the proposed development at 734 Latoria Road. If you would like this correspondence to be received by Council, and form part of the information that we collate for the Public Hearing, I would ask that you re-format this as an email addressed to Mayor and Council (you can send it to me, though) and ensure you include your civic address and contact information. For the present time, I can provide you with some further information that may help you to better understand the applicant’s proposal. Despite the proposed zoning of RS4 instead of RR6A, the subdivision that would result from this rezoning (if approved) will be similar a similar overall density to the RR6A subdivisions on Goldspur and Whimfield. All three developments are in the range of 5 lots per acre. Once difference in the proposal for 734 Latoria is that the applicant will be dedicating approximately 13% of the land as park. The rezoning that resulted in the creation of Whimfield Terrace dedicated 3.25% of the land as park, and the rezoning that resulted in Goldspur Road dedicate approximately 11% of the land as park. I trust that this information is helpful. Should you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me here. Sincerely, Julia Buckingham Planner 1 CITY OF LANGFORD 2nd floor, 877 Goldstream Ave. Langford, BC V9B 2X8 T (250) 478-7882 --- ### Email: [unnamed] to Matthew Baldwin Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 12:49 PM Subject: Rezoning of 734 Latoria Road Dear Sir, My husband and I are opposed to the city’s rezoning designation of the property . The surrounding area is zoned RR6A or RR2 so why now change the community plan and recommend RS4? Besides needing to preserve an area with sensitive ecological issues, why would you choose to increase the disturbance and stress on this piece of land by using a denser zoning than exists around it? To say single dwellings without suites provide less density is just not factual and does not fit with the philosophy of providing affordable rental availability in the city. For the city to accept money from the developer in lieu of green space is unacceptable. Presentations where made to the planning committee by many area residents, including a petition, yet the committee voted to allow this designation of zone to be passed onto council as is. As citizens of Langford, we demand that the property be zoned RR6A [Name and address fields were present but not transcribed] --- ### Email: Julia Buckingham to Suzette Chapman Subject: FW: rezoning application for 734 Latoria Road Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 9:24:21 AM (Forwarded message content) From: Julia Buckingham Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:11 PM To: [unnamed] Subject: RE: rezoning application for 734 Latoria Road Good afternoon, Thank you for your email in regards to the proposed rezoning at 734 Latoria. If you would like this correspondence to be received by Council, and form part of the information that we collate for the Public Hearing, I would ask that you re-format this as an email to Mayor and Council (you can send it to me, though) and ensure you include your civic address and contact information. For the present time, I can provide you with a bit more clarification on the RS4 zone and the applicant’s proposal. You mention that the RS4 zone allows townhomes – this is not true. The RS4 zone only allows townhomes on three specific lots within all of Langford (3690 Happy Valley, 3694 Happy Valley, and 4342 West Shore Parkway). These properties completed what is called a text amendment rezoning to specifically allow that use on their properties only and it is in no way applicable to other RS4 zoned properties, including 734 Latoria if it were to be approved. If the applicants were to want townhomes on their property it would have to be approved as part of this rezoning and that is not something the applicants are asking for. Despite the proposed zoning of RS4 instead of RR6A, the subdivision that would result from this rezoning (if approved) will be a similar overall density to the RR6A subdivisions on Goldspur and Whimfield. All three developments are in the range of 5 lots per acre. ### Emails and Correspondence - Part 2 of 2 Source pages: 35–143 I’ll also mention that the 734 Latoria development is planning to dedicate 13% of the land as park, compared to Goldspur which dedicated 11% and Whimfield which only dedicated 3.25%. I trust that this information is helpful. Should you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me here. Sincerely, Julia Buckingham Planner I CITY OF LANGFORD 2nd floor, 877 Goldstream Ave. Langford, BC V9B 2X8 T (250) 478-7882 --- ### Email/Letter: Residents at 3592 Whimfield Terrace Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 8:07 PM To: planning@thecityoflangford.ca Subject: rezoning application for 734 Latoria Road Dear Sir or Madam: We are residents of Langford, residing at 3592 Whimfield Terrace, just off Latoria Road. We are emailing you to express our opposition to the rezoning application by Draycor to rezone 734 Latoria Road from agricultural to RS4. We have signed a petition that was presented to the planning committee on July 9th, but we would also like to express our concerns to be forwarded to Council for consideration. We are not opposed to new construction, as we have benefited by being able to relocate from Surrey in January of 2017 to Langford, and we certainly hope that many more families are able to take advantage of everything that Langford has to offer. That being said, at the time we were purchasing our new home in the fall of 2016, we spoke to an employee of the Planning department as we were concerned about what the intentions were for the area, particularly coming from the [redacted] area where development was taking place at a much faster pace than the infrastructure to service those developments, which resulted in many issues. At the time we spoke to that employee, we were told that the Whimfield/Goldspur development were the smallest size lots that were being anticipated for the Latoria Road area, and that there were no multi-family or commercial developments intended according to the official community plan. The proposal by Draycor to rezone to RS4 would allow townhouses, even if at the present time this is not their stated intention. We have found since moving to Whimfield several issues that would be exacerbated with more development. These include a lack of parking on the street for visitors; heavy truck traffic on Latoria with no sidewalks, making it dangerous to walk along; no green spaces or parks currently or being planned for the future; and a lack of public transportation, particularly outside of rush hour, to encourage less vehicles in the area. It was mentioned at the planning committee meeting that the RR6A zoning, which appears to be the only rezoning so far on Latoria, allows for secondary suites, which was taken to mean that there is a more dense population in the RR6A zones than the RS4 zoning would allow for. However, a quick survey of the residents along our block provides that many of the suites are unoccupied, or are occupied on a seasonal/occasional basis by visiting relatives, etc., and do not have a major impact on the number of residents in the area. I have a great deal of empathy for my neighbours on Goldspur who bought a home with a huge rock wall behind them, believing that that would necessitate any future building to be done taking that existing rock into consideration, only to find that it seems to be permissible to blast in very close proximity to existing houses. As well, the covenant in place between our lots was to allow for the retention of mature trees to allow for privacy. A quick look up the block shows that there was not a single tree retained for that purpose. Development is a good thing for a community, as is new residents, but it must be done in an environmentally considerate manner. We are not opposed to the rezoning to RR6A. We look forward to meeting with Draycor as proposed to gather more information, and we look forward to being able to be heard at the appropriate Council meeting to express our views. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at [REDACTED]. Thank you for your attention. --- ### Resident Letter: Working Committee (Letter of Concern) Source pages: 35–143 ## Resident Letter: Working Committee (Letter of Concern) Cc: Matthew Baldwin, Director of Planning, City of Langford Original email NOVEMBER 25 2018, with added address information DECEMBER 3, 2018 Re: Proposed Development by Draycor of 734 Latoria Road On Thursday, November 22, 2018, a number of residents attended an information session hosted by Draycor concerning the above proposed development. In attendance on behalf of Draycor were Kevin Parker, the developer, Richard Irwin, introduced as a consultant working with Draycor, and Josh Bartley, the engineer for the development. There were residents present from all of the surrounding area, although, due to what was explained as a miscommunication, only selected streets were notified by Draycor of the upcoming meeting. Draycor had been asked by Langford to host this meeting to address a number of concerns expressed at the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee (PZAH) meeting (July 9, 2018). These concerns generally fell into four areas: - Rezoning to RS4 rather than RR6A - Environmental protection of trees and riparian areas - Traffic and parking - Impact on current residents due to blasting, land clearing and construction Regarding the first area of concern, residents repeatedly questioned why RR6A zoning could not be maintained to keep the look and feel of the neighbourhood. Eventually, after being asked if Draycor was opposed to RR6A zoning and unwilling to rezone to RR6A, Kevin Parker stated that he was “not aware of all the ins and outs of RR6A zoning” and repeated that their proposal was based on RS4 zoning. While Draycor did come prepared with a number of house schematics and artist renderings, it was clear that Draycor had not given any consideration to the citizens’ comments raised at the PZAH meeting on July 9th, over four months ago, and had not amended their proposal. In reference to the environmental impact, despite the concerns raised at the PZAH committee meeting, Draycor did not have a biologist present and consequently was unable to answer any questions regarding the environmental considerations on the previously developed area nor on the area currently under discussion. Draycor has committed to providing residents with a copy of the Riparian Assessment completed for Phase 1 of development on 734 Latoria Road. Kevin Parker indicated that he would be contacting Langford to obtain a copy of the assessment commissioned by Draycor as he was uncertain if he could provide one directly. When questioned on this he shared that he was not sure he had a copy or had ever seen a copy. This created significant concern regarding the developer’s diligence in this area. Concerns were raised regarding construction traffic, as the relatively small size of the Phase 1 development created many issues with large construction vehicle traffic and workers' private vehicles being parked blocking sidewalks, in no parking areas, etc. Draycor indicated that they could assist with their drivers but had no control of other builders or tradespeople. Lack of adequate parking for the proposed smaller lots was voiced as a significant concern as this has already been an issue for the larger lots in the surrounding areas. Their proposal for smaller lots along with secondary suites, and their understanding of having only one side of the street available for street parking, in an area inadequately serviced by transit and without continuous sidewalks and bike lanes, without a realistic consideration of where all those vehicles will park is not creating a harmonious community. Draycor shared an example of a situation where a specific parking area within a Langford development was established; however, there was no indication of changing the parking from the preliminary layout sketch unless Langford directed Draycor to do so. This again demonstrated that Draycor was not engaged in considering the neighbours' concerns and would consider changes only if directed by Langford. Questions regarding blasting, land clearing and impact on neighbours were answered in general terms, and Draycor has committed to following up on a few items related to Goldspur and privacy issues. The very close proximity of the proposed blasting zones is of great concern to the residents who back onto the area in question as this is in many cases right up along their property line. While the residents appreciated Draycor hosting the session, the general consensus afterwards is that Draycor was unprepared to discuss many of the concerns previously raised at the PZAH committee meeting in July and through correspondence with some residents. The proposed lot plan appears to be unchanged, and the renderings of their conceptual homes, while attractive, are only relevant if Draycor choose to develop the entire site themselves. Kevin Parker did express a desire to build all of the houses but also said that they may sell off lots to other builders as well. As a result, at the closing of the meeting, the residents in attendance clearly stated to Draycor that they were still opposed to the rezoning application although they are willing to work with them to come up with a more compatible proposal for the neighbourhood. We are not opposed to development. However, through involvement in the process for this development and others, we are questioning the ability of residents to bring forward concerns to Langford City Council and have them addressed and responded to in a meaningful way. We appreciate the need for affordable housing and continuing development; however, we respectfully request that a more transparent and more responsive development process be the standard instead of forcing what feels like an adversarial relationship with our elected officials and community business owners. Signed: [REDACTED] Working committee represents all the residents of the surrounding neighbourhood of this property who signed the petition presented to the Council, July 9, 2018 --- ### Petition (as submitted) Source pages: 35–143 ## Petition (as submitted) - Petition title: PETITION - Statement: We the citizens of the City of Langford are opposed and petition against the proposed property rezoning of 734 Latoria from Agricultural to RRS4 - We the undersigned are not in agreement with the rezoning proposal - The proposed zoning will cause a negative Environmental and [handwritten: increased population density] impact - Property zoning should be RR6A in keeping with the adjoining property on Goldspur/Whimfield/Deltana/Desmond Roads - Existing Covenant on Goldspur/Deltana/Whimfield properties requires rewording to allow fences on property line Dated July 9 2018 [Large blocks of signature lines and redacted signatures appear in source; signatures were captured as blacked/redacted images in the original.] [Image: Petition pages with redacted signature blocks] --- ### Presentation: "PRESENTATION TO LANGFORD PLANNING COMMITTEE RE: 734 LATORIA ROAD REZONING" (July 9 2018) Source pages: 35–143 ## Presentation: "PRESENTATION TO LANGFORD PLANNING COMMITTEE RE: 734 LATORIA ROAD REZONING" (July 9 2018) [Slide content transcribed below. Images were present in original slides — noted where applicable.] ### Slide: Information - We are a group of residents living around the said property with concerns about the proposed rezoning lot size - We are not opposing re development but the rezoning type - Concern that conflicting information has been given to different individual residents on enquiry at City Hall ### Slide: PROPOSED LOT DESIGNATION RRS4 - Smaller Lot size - the lots on Goldspur, Whimfield, Deltana and Desmond are zoned RR6A - Draycor letter states "similar size" - RRS4 zoning is definitely not similar - Concern that lots are smaller and can be subdivided (400m2) on this zoning thus increasing population density which is not in line with this areas community plan ### Slide: COVENANT ON GOLDSPUR/WHIMFIELD/DELTANA - The covenant in place on the Goldspur, Whimfield, Deltana subdivision has, by planning departments own admission, not worked. (4m/13' at back of lots to have 3 trees/plants and no permanent construction, i.e. fence) - Where the properties meet on Goldspur and Whimfield has become "no man's land" (see picture) All old growth removed. No new trees were planted on this land. - This leaves us basically loosing that property. If we wish to put a fence up right now with the present covenant wording it has to sit 4m into our property. This needs to be rectified to allow for a fence to be built on property line, but still with no other permanent structures and retaining the need for tree planting in this space. - Desmond residents have a buffer zone, Goldspur residents demand the same [Image: Illustration of covenant land failure — photo embedded in slide.] ### Slide: Traffic volume and speed - There is already increased volume of traffic on Latoria, (designated as a bus and truck route) with all the new developments over the last 5 years, as well as this being used by through traffic as a short cut to Metchosin. - Speed is a huge concern, making entry onto Latoria increasingly difficult and dangerous - This proposed higher density zoning will increase the problem. Smaller lots with single dwelling DO NOT REDUCE occupants versus houses with suites. Not all houses in the surrounding areas have suites - No plans have been found to address these issues ### Slide: Environmental concerns - Redirecting of the stream on the top part of the lot has left the stream contaminated with builder's debris which in turn has affected the wetlands and pond below on Latoria [Image: Photos of debris in stream] ### Slide: Lookout Lake Dam spillway - Concern around the fact that this property is on the spillway of Lookout Lake Dam and Colwood engineering report identifies this issue (also see Langford Watercourse Bylaw 386) ### Slide: Environmental - Concerns over land grading, involving removal of old growth trees and redirection of stream, protected by Riparian law, stability of the natural soil, water, habitat by blasting and rock removal which will completely change the topography of the land. [Image: Photo of site, houses adjacent to treed area] ### Slide: Environmental - Flora and Fauna - There are many old growth and protected Arbutus trees on this land. We would like to see some old growth trees left in situ. Eagles nest in these trees and recent blasting, supposedly delayed, still occurred causing stress on the birds. [Image: Two photos of trees] ### Slide: Environmental - There is no useable greenspace designated in the close vicinity thus rendering the area unfriendly to the community especially children and animals. - Concern that Langford has stated they will not be building anymore small parks or play areas due to upkeep cost - Concern that recent applications for a School/Park designation in the Klahanie area have not been approved ### Slide: Conclusion - The residents around this property are opposed to this designation for rezoning and request it be RR6A to remain in the community plan - Existing Covenant needs rewording - We request the committee review our concerns and address them - Signed petition submitted - Thank you [Image: Slide divider] --- ### Riparian and Sensitive Areas Considerations (Presentation slides) Source pages: 35–143 ## Riparian and Sensitive Areas Considerations (Presentation slides) ### Slide: Riparian Assessment - The definition of "stream" includes a watercourse, whether it usually contains water or not, a pond, lake, river, creek, or brook; and a ditch, spring or wetland that is connected by surface flow to a watercourse, pond, lake, river, creek, or brook that provides fish habitat. Streams can be enclosed in ravines or on active floodplains. ### Slide: Riparian Areas Regulation Implementation Guidebook Box text (as seen on slide): - Does the Riparian Areas Regulation apply? - Yes, to all streams, rivers, creeks, ditches, ponds, lakes, springs and wetlands connected by surface flow to a waterbody that provides fish habitat. - No, not to marine or estuarine shorelines. These fish habitats are still subject to the federal Fisheries Act. - No, not to watercourses that are disconnected from fish habitats. ### Slide: Riparian Zones Map (Map 13) [Image: Riparian Zones map — slide shows map area with blue riparian zones and Latoria Road marked.] ### Slide: Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) - 734 Latoria - A SPEA has been established traversing the property just north of the existing dwelling [Image: Site plan image showing SPEA and approximate location; a yellow star marks an area in a later email.] ### Slide: Bylaw 1201 — Environmental Protection Development Permit Guidelines 2.3.1 / 2.3.2 – Riparian Guidelines - Minimum development setbacks will be 43 m from the high water mark of any watercourse unless otherwise permitted in a Development Permit issued by the City of Langford. - Any development occurring within the Riparian Development Permit Area is encouraged to exceed the minimum standards of the Riparian Areas Regulation. ### Slide: Adjustments … 2.3.4 - The adjustment of the SPEA boundary should not result in the loss of the only large trees in the portion of the parcel that lies within the Riparian Development Permit Areas. ### Slide: Observed fish – Pritchard Creek - Cutthroat trout, Threespine Stickleback, Pumpkinseed, Rainbow trout - Source: iMapBC – Freshwater Atlas ### Slide: Confirmation of fish habitat upstream - Date of most recent confirmation: June 15, 2018 ### Slide: Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) — plan image [Image: Site plan showing SPEA, existing dwelling, proposed lots. Yellow star later used to show excavator area.] --- ### Bylaw and Flood Considerations (Presentation slides) Source pages: 35–143 ## Bylaw and Flood Considerations (Presentation slides) ### Slide: Bylaw 300 — Zoning Bylaw 300 — Flood Control and Environmental Protection 3.16.01 - Despite any other regulation in this Bylaw, no building or any part thereof may be constructed, reconstructed, moved, or extended, nor may any mobile home or unit, modular home or structure be located: - (1) Within 30 m (98 ft) of the natural boundary of any watercourse [note: slide shows earlier text with strikethrough of "or 15 m (49 ft) of a natural depression or stream that contains water less than six months a year."] 3.16.02 - No fill may be placed to support a building or structure, within 30 m (98.5 ft) of the natural boundary of any watercourse. ### Slide: Flood Control - Summary - Adherence to 3.16 Flood Control and Environmental Protection essential considering High Risk rating of Lookout Brook Dam in Colwood and Overland Water Insurance changes for homeowners ### Slide: Current status - Colwood - Source: CITY OF COLWOOD - (DRAFT) MINUTES OF EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING; Tuesday May 15, 2018 @ 3:00 PM - Excerpt: "Geoff Amy, Chair, provided an overview of the Lookout Brook Dam Plan. It is at the top of Triangle Mountain in Lookout Lake Park. We have been tasked by the Provincial Government Dam Plan Manager to update our plan. If the dam breaches, it floods into Langford. Under the CRD agreement, we feel we can do the plan without any formal agreements written. We have an August deadline to have it done for the province." --- ### Official Community Plan Considerations (Presentation slides) Source pages: 35–143 ## Official Community Plan Considerations (Presentation slides) ### Slide: Bylaw 1603 — Agriculture to Hillside or Shoreline - Reference line shown: "734 Latoria Rd from Agricultural to Hillside or Shoreline" ### Slide: Official Community Plan — Land Use & Growth Management Strategy (brief) - Controlled Development Area: Neighbourhood — Existing Settled Areas - Hillside or Shoreline — Undeveloped or Existing Low Intensity Hillside or Shoreline Areas - Open Space — Public and Private Open Spaces ### Slide: 734 Latoria — Hillside (or Shoreline) - Map showing 734 Latoria as "Undeveloped or existing low intensity hillside or shoreline areas" ### Slide: Zoning in the immediate area [Image: Map showing zoning; RR6, RR6A, RR2, AG1, R1 etc.] ### Slide: Recommendations (from presentation) - Ensure complete adherence with: - Riparian Areas Regulation - Zoning Bylaw 300 - Flood Control and Environmental Protection - Bylaw 1201 - Environmental Protection Development Permit Guidelines - Rezone in keeping with OCP Hillside and allow RR6A zoning to match Bylaw 1596 (upper portion of 734 Latoria) and adjacent developments > Staff recommendations verbatim (from slide, reproduced exactly as slide text): > > Ensure complete adherence with: > > - Riparian Areas Regulation > - Zoning Bylaw 300 > - Flood Control and Environmental Protection > - Bylaw 1201 > - Environmental Protection Development Permit Guidelines > > Rezone in keeping with OCP Hillside and allow RR6A zoning to match Bylaw 1596 (upper portion of 734 Latoria) and adjacent developments [Image: Maps and flood depth images used to illustrate flood considerations] --- ### Site Activity and Riparian Concerns (Emails and photos) Source pages: 35–143 ## Site Activity and Riparian Concerns (Emails and photos) ### Email chain re: Application of Riparian Areas Regulation - From: Riparian Areas FLNR:EX and Cragg, Jenna FLNR:EX (Ministry) - Date: Thu, Jul 19, 2018 - Content (paraphrased and excerpted): - Jenna Cragg, M.Sc., R.P. Bio, Ecosystems Biologist, West Coast Region, Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, wrote that burying and culverting a stream would require an Approval under the Water Sustainability Act (WSA), as well as authorization from DFO due to the presence of rainbow and cutthroat trout in the system. - She checked files and found no record of an application for a Section 11 notification or Approval under the WSA for the culverting of Lookout Brook. - Recommendation: report to Natural Resource Violations using the online reporting page: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hen/nrv/ - The protection of the riparian zone above the High Water Mark is the jurisdiction of local government, and any violations of their bylaws must be addressed by their enforcement staff. ### Email: Resident to Julia Buckingham Sent: Friday, October 25, 2018 12:23 PM Subject: Excavator work at 734 Latoria likely within SPEA Hi Julia, Thank you very much for taking my call. As noted the work is being done directly behind the existing house, very close to the stream. The yellow star shows the approximate area. Below are a number of photos taken from the road, adjacent to the new trail and new metal railing over the culvert. The company doing the work is Pacific Rockworks. Thanks, [REDACTED] [Image: Photos of excavator working near stream — original photos included in document] Julia Buckingham (Planner I) responded that a bylaw officer was sent to the site to check things out and to tell them to stop work if it was occurring on the proposed subdivision land as it falls within multiple development permit areas and has not received a development permit for any works on site. She set up a meeting for Tuesday, July 24 at 10am. Subsequent emails indicate the resident confirmed that "the excavator was removed from the development permit area and was parked on asphalt." --- ### Photos (not included) — referenced in document Source pages: 35–143 ## Photos (not included) — referenced in document - [Image: Excavator working on site near stream, Pacific Rockworks vehicle visible] - [Image: Excavator parked behind existing house, view from road] - [Image: Additional photos of trees near culvert and railings] (Images were present in original pages; excluded here per instructions. Noted where they appear.) --- ### Additional Resident Letters and Submissions (selected) Source pages: 35–143 ## Additional Resident Letters and Submissions (selected) The document includes many letters and submissions from residents expressing concerns. Key themes across these letters include: - Opposition to rezoning from Agriculture or RR6A to RS4 - Requests that the property be zoned RR6A to match adjacent areas (Goldspur/Whimfield/Deltana/Desmond) - Concerns about environmental impacts, including riparian habitat, old-growth trees, arbutus trees, eagles' nests, stream redirection, sediment and debris in watercourses - Concerns about blasting and proximity to existing homes and root systems of trees - Concerns about traffic volume and speed on Latoria Road, lack of sidewalks, lack of continuous sidewalks/bike lanes, and truck route designation - Concerns about parking availability for visitors and construction vehicles, particularly with smaller lots and potential secondary suites - Concerns about lack of green space, parks, playgrounds; frustration over City policy that "money from developers in lieu of providing green space" is used rather than developing small local parks - Concerns about compliance with Provincial Water Sustainability Act and whether provincial approvals (e.g., Section 11) had been applied for regarding culverting or redirecting stream channels - Concerns about flood risk in relation to Lookout Brook Dam and potential insurance impacts for homeowners Many letters reference attendance at the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee meeting of July 9, 2018 and a petition that was presented to that committee (petition dated July 9, 2018). Letters were submitted in Jan 2019 and earlier, many stamped "RECEIVED" by the Planning Department on various dates (e.g., JAN 16 2019, JAN 18 2019). Some excerpted letter opening lines (exact phrasing preserved where available): - "Dear Mayor Young and Councillors: Re: Public Hearing for 734 Latoria Road, Proposed Bylaws 1784 and 1785 We are writing to express our concern with the proposed rezoning of the property located at 734 Latoria Road. We have no issue with the rezoning from agriculture reserve to hillside/shoreline; however, it is the designation of RS4 that we disagree with." - "Dear Sir/Madam: We are residents of Langford, residing at 3592 Whimfield Terrace, just off Latoria Road. We are emailing you to express our opposition to the rezoning application by Draycor to rezone 734 Latoria Road from agricultural to RS4. We have signed a petition that was presented to the planning committee on July 9th, but we would also like to express our concerns to be forwarded to Council for consideration." - "To Mayor and Council, City of Langford. RE: Rezoning of 734 Latoria, Bylaw 1785... When we were deciding on the area we wished to live in Southern Vancouver Island, Langford stood out as having a good Community Plan for a developing city... Now we see the Community Plan has not had community input since 2012, and zoning changes now focus on changing to more increased high-density developments." Signatures and addresses on many letters and petition signature blocks are shown as redacted in the source document (large black boxes). --- ### Attachments and Supporting Documents Referenced Source pages: 35–143 ## Attachments and Supporting Documents Referenced - Riparian Assessment (reference: Draycor indicated a Riparian Assessment was completed for Phase 1; residents and Draycor discussed sharing a copy) - Site plans and draft layout for 734 Latoria Road showing proposed lots, SPEA, park dedication area (images and drawings included in original) - Flood depth / hydraulic mapping for Lookout Brook and associated spillway areas (images included) - Photos of site work and excavator activity (included in original; noted above) - Petition forms (multiple pages with signatures — largely redacted in source) --- ### Notations of Images in Pages 1–109 Source pages: 35–143 ## Notations of Images in Pages 1–109 - [Image: Unknown small image — page 4 of 109] - [Image: Multiple photographs of site conditions, excavator, stream, culvert and vegetation — scattered through pages] - [Image: Presentation slides images including maps, photos and diagrams — multiple pages] - [Image: Petition pages with redacted signatures] --- ### Contact and Staff Information (as included in emails) Source pages: 35–143 ## Contact and Staff Information (as included in emails) - Matthew G. S. Baldwin, MCIP, RPP — Director of Planning and Subdivision, CITY OF LANGFORD 2nd floor, 877 Goldstream Ave., Langford, BC V9B 2X8 T (250) 474-6919 · F (250) 391-3436 - Julia Buckingham — Planner I, CITY OF LANGFORD 2nd floor, 877 Goldstream Ave., Langford, BC V9B 2X8 T (250) 478-7882 - David Sametz, MCRP — Land Development Planner (mentioned in emails) --- ### Notices and Regulatory References Cited Source pages: 35–143 ## Notices and Regulatory References Cited - Bylaw No. 1785 (relevant to rezoning application; referenced in email subject) - Bylaw 1201 — Environmental Protection Development Permit Guidelines - Zoning Bylaw 300 — Flood Control and Environmental Protection (sections 3.16.01, 3.16.02) - Bylaw 1603 — (OCP amendment reference: Agriculture to Hillside or Shoreline) - Bylaw 1596 — referenced regarding RR6A zoning for upper portion of 734 Latoria - Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) — provincial regulation; implementation guide referenced - Water Sustainability Act (WSA) — approvals referenced (Section 11 notifications/approvals) - Langford Watercourse Bylaw 386 (referenced in presentation concerning dam spillway) - iMapBC — Freshwater Atlas source for fish observations (Rainbow trout, Cutthroat trout, etc.) --- ### Summary of Key Numerical/Date/Bylaw/Address References (preserved exactly as in source) Source pages: 35–143 ## Summary of Key Numerical/Date/Bylaw/Address References (preserved exactly as in source) - 734 Latoria Road - Bylaw No. 1785 - Bylaw 1201 - Zoning Bylaw 300 - Bylaw 1603 - Bylaw 1596 - SPEA (Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area) - 13% of the land as park (stated for 734 Latoria development) - Goldspur dedicated approx. 11% park; Whimfield dedicated 3.25% - Yield of subdivisions: original 5 acre parcel subdivided into 24 lots → 4.8 lots per acre; proposed 4.14 acres proposed for 21 lots → ~5 lots per acre - Riparian Development minimum setback: 43 m from high water mark (slide) - Flood control distances: Within 30 m (98 ft) of natural boundary of any watercourse (Zoning Bylaw text) - Date of most recent fish confirmation upstream: June 15, 2018 - Petition dated July 9, 2018 - Emails and meetings dates: July 9, 2018 (PZAH meeting), July 19–20, 2018 (correspondence), July 24, 2018 (proposed meeting), November 22, 2018 (Draycor info session), July 20, 2018 (riparian emails), October 25, 2018 (excavator photos), January 2019 (various email forwards and file notes) --- (End of content extracted from pages 1–109. Images referenced above were present in the original document but are not reproduced here; notes indicate where images appeared.)