DocumentsCorrespondenceNov 2, 2020Page 13
West Shore Parkway and Goldstream Avenue Rezoning
A resident email (Nov 2, 2020 10:24 AM) seeking clarification about which parcels are the subject properties (notes discrepancy in documents) and raising environmental concerns about algae blooms, flooding and loss of settling ponds.
Key facts
- Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 10:24 AM
- Notes discrepancy: Bylaw No. 1931 schedule shows 2775 West Shore Parkway and 1365 Goldstream as subject properties
- Requests clarification prior to the public meeting that evening
- Raises environmental issues: algae blooms, flooding, excessive weed growth and reduced settling ponds in Westhills
West Shore Parkway and Goldstream Avenue Rezoning
From:
Emily Garry
Sent:
Monday, November 2, 2020 10:24 AM
To:
Langford Planning General Mailbox
Subject:
West Shore Parkway and Goldstream Avenue Rezoning
My name is and I live at on Langford Lake. I’ve just been made aware of the meeting on this evening and downloaded the information. I have some questions regarding the documentation. I can’t get my head around which is the correct representation of the “subject properties”. In the document titled “City of Langford Bylaw No. 1931 A Bylaw to amend Bylaw no 300 “Langford Zoning Bylaw, 1999””, the attached schedule shows the properties at 2775 West Shore Parkway and 1365 Goldstream Avenue as the Subject properties. The notices published in the Goldstream Gazette show the same shaded area. In the document titled “Notice of Public Hearing” on the second Page “Rezoning Bylaw Amendment (Z20‐0016) 2885 West Short Pkwy & 1365 Goldstream Ave”, there are additional areas highlighted – which encompass some lakefront plus property and property on the non‐lake side of Lake End Road across to the back of houses on Lakeshore Place. These also are identified as “Subject Properties”. On the staff report and the notice sent to residents, the extra areas are highlighted also. Which of these correctly identify the “subject properties”? If the extra highlighted area is correct then I’m concerned with the wording in the Staff Report to Council under the paragraph titled “Purpose” which reads “As part of this agreement, a portion of the subject property could be rezoned from the AM Zone to the CT1 zone, and a portion could be rezoned to the RT2 zone with various amendments to both zones”. If this bylaw is passed it concerns me that this area so close to an already failing lake could be rezoned without any further public input. I’d like to add that as long‐term residents on the lake, we watch it deteriorate on a yearly basis. We see algae blooms, flooding, excessive weed growth and forbidden use due to unsafe conditions. These are more and more frequent. We are concerned with the reduction in size of the settling ponds in Westhills, which I understood were for the health of the lake and continued development resulting in the loss of natural habitat that filters the lake, the “jewel of Langford” will become so polluted as to be unsuitable for any kind of recreation. I’m hoping these concerns will be addressed/clarified at the meeting or, if not, the Public meeting rescheduled so residents have some time to educate themselves on the proposal. A response regarding the discrepancy in the highlighted area would be greatly appreciated prior to the meeting tonight. Thank you for your time.