Inside Langford

The last council meeting went until after 9PM and covered a lot of information, so this report on that meeting is very long, so here’s some interesting tidbits to get you started:

- City Planner Matthew Baldwin’s explanation that the City of Langford has opted out of the province’s site remediation program, so ensuring the property is not contaminated would be solely the responsibility of the developer,
- concerns about fire safety with a near-zero setback of approximately 6 inches were answered with quidelines require the building material on that setback be noncombustible
- City Engineer John Manson explained, “speed bumps are a hazard to our community, as they could cause an accident with our emergency vehicles,”
- Councillor Szpak said, “sidewalks and beautification are coming along as we develop,” and, “we do not have building heights in the (new) OCP,”
- residents were repeatedly told to “bring their concerns before the Transportation and Public Works Committee,”
- City Planner, Matthew Baldwin in response to concerns about property damage and injury from blasting said, “that’s why blasting companies have so much insurance,”
- Coucillor Lillian Szpak explained to a local resident that, “anyone who has an interest in it has a right to speak” at a Langford Public Hearing.

There were 4 Public Hearings:

1st) Bylaw No. 1190 to permit the development of approximately 83 units in a four storey residential building at 2697 and 2701 Peatt Road had speakers raised concerns about a variety of issues including:
- possible site contamination which was met with City Planner Matthew Baldwin’s explanation the City of Langford had opted out of the province’s site remediation program so ensuring the property is not contaminated would be solely the responsibility of the developer,
- fire potentially crossing the proposed zero setback of approximately 6 inches was answered with quidelines requiring the building material on that setback be noncombustible,
- the development might not finish, like the development on Orono Ave., to which the proponent indicated the development would not commence without all the money needed to finish being in place,
- a variety of traffic issues; eventual extension of Claude Rd. through what is now only a pedestrian walkway to Peatt Rd., lack of a traffic study on Claude Road even though there will be new driveways and later much more through traffic, assurances from the City Engineer that Claude Road was not yet operating at compacity and development would add very little traffic was challenged as drivers avoiding the new Goldstream Ave. roundabout are already increasing traffic in the neighbourhood. There were repeated requests for traffic calming measures from area residents. City Engineer John Manson explained, “speed bumps are a hazard to our community, as they could cause an accident with our emergency vehicles,” that possibly a speed sign could be posted, and the neighbours should bring their concerns before the Transportation and Public Works Committee,
- lack of parking in the area and throughout the city was also repeatedly cited by speakers, many noting even when developments met the city’s parking requirements, there were still parking issues, was answered repeatedly that this development exceeds the parking requirements, though it can be argued that it’s not possible to exactly “know” whether the parking requirements will be exceeded when parking is per unit and you have “approximately 83 units,” not a maximum of 83 units,
- concerns about lack of safe places to walk was answered by Councillor Szpak saying, “sidewalks and beautification are coming along as we develop,”
- worries about annoying outflow illumination from underground parking garage, similar in nature to the unresolved issue with a nearby development by the same developer, was answered by the city planner that this would be dealt with at the permit approval stage,
- queries about allowable building heights in the area brought the response of, “we do not have building heights in the OCP,” from Councillor Szpak,
- when questioned why there were only 18 bicycle hook ups for so many units the proponent of the development pointed out each unit had a storage locker that could securely house a bicycle, although no indication was given how accessible the lockers would be for daily access in and out out of the building from the storage lockers.

2nd) Bylaw No. 1286 to amend the zoning designation of the CD10 Zone (Boulder Ridge) to include One-Family Dwellings as a permitted use in Areas 2, 3 and 5 and to revise the density bonusing amenity structure to accept either amenity land or cash in lieu at 3349, 3355 and 3361 Happy Valley Road brought forward speakers who asked about:
- parking being allowed on both sides or one side of the road, the response being a suggestion to bring their concerns before the Transportation and Public Works Committee,
- concerns about extension of the roadway requiring extensive blasting that lead City Planner Matthew Baldwin to repeatedly explain blasting is not regulated by the City of Langford but by the blasting company, WorkSafe BC and the blasting company’s insurance provider,
- queries about safety for local residents, specifically children who might be playing outside in their yard and any damage or injury from blasting brought the response from the city planner, “that’s why blasting companies have so much insurance,”
- concerns were raised about the need for traffic calming near Happy Valley School, to which Councillor Szpak responded that the speed limit in school zones is 30 km/h and again the suggestion was made for residents to bring their concerns before the Transportation and Public Works Committee,
- one resident asked if Happy Valley School could accommodate all the new children, and Councillor Szpak explained the Sooke School Board regulates all that and that “we hear from them when there is an issue,”
- concerns about noise from construction brought the response that the noise bylaw allows for noise from dawn to dusk and that construction could commence at 6:30AM M-F and 7AM on weekends,
- concerns one resident cited about respiratory issues for children and a white house turned brown from dust due to no watering trucks being used and trucks driving uncovered, was answered with trucks are legally required to be covered and that watering trucks should be used to control dust,
- a query about a wildlife corridor already in existence brought the response from City Planner Matthew Baldwin that the park would be extended to accommodate this wildlife corridor.

3rd) Bylaw No. 1293 is to amend the City of Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300 by amending the P1 (Neighbourhood Institutional) zone to allow for the development of a six storey building that would contain approximately 157 Assisted Living Apartment units and a 257m2 (2,766ft2) Church at 911 Jenkins Ave. brought in many many letters and a lot of speakers. Those speaking against the proposed development were from the immediate neighbourhood and while some voiced support for the idea of seniors housing in their neighbourhood they objected to the 6 storey height and density, citing it was not in keeping with their single family homes that “would be dwarfed by the monolith,” and raised concerns about traffic in and out of the facility, from residents, visitors, families and emergency vehicles.

Those that spoke in favour were often from outside the City of Langford and were parishoners of the Lutheran Church or had some familiarity or connection to the Alexander MacKie Lodge, an existing senior’s complex already built and operating successfully on Station Rd. by the same developer. One local resident questioned why so many people not from Langford were being allowed to speak. Coucillor Lillian Szpak explained that, “anyone who has an interest in it has a right to speak” at a Public Hearing.

4th) Bylaw No. 1294 is to amend the City of Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300 by amending the zoning designation of the amenity lands from R2A (One and Two-Family Dwelling) to RM3A (Apartment) and to revise the density bonusing amenity structure to accept either amenity land or cash-in-lieu at 3458 Happy Valley Road – there were no speakers in the Public Hearing.

Public Participation:
The four public hearing were followed by many Walfred residents out to speak, as some of them had missed or could not attend the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee meeting that considered the temporary industrial permit for the sale of crushed rock proposed for their residential neighbourhood. They spoke about:
- one Walfred resident brought in 5 letters of opposition from other residents who were unable to attend so the letters could be added to the record,
- concerns about dust from the on-site operation and transport trucks, and the possible lack of watering trucks and uncovered loads that maybe problematic like in other nearby areas where complaints did not lead to the situation being corrected,
- continuous noise during all daylight hours will be the destruction of local resident’s “peace and enjoyment,”
- the lack of guidelines or parameters for dust and sound makes enforcement questionable,
- offers of information on decibal levels from a local sound engineer and questions about guidelines for enforcement were derailed by Councillor Szpak, who chaired the council meeting, noting that they were there to discuss the sale of crushed rock and nothing else
- the three year permit could be extended to 6 years, arguably a long time for a “temporary” permit
- all of Langford could have temp. industrial permits,
- it was questioned whether a BC Mining permit was also necessary,
- finally, residents read the CRD noise bylaw Langford is using and felt it precluded operations on a Sunday, yet Council and staff cited dawn to dusk operations 7 days a week.