Editor: In November of last year, the Coulter Berry building was before Langley Township council. Many people supported this building, and many people did not. From looking at the minutes of the public hearing, which also contained a record of written submissions, it looks like the ratio was close to three to one who were not in support of this proposal.
Those who did not support this building pointed to the Official Community Plan, and the Fort Langley Building Façade Guidelines, to help bolster their argument.
At this meeting, several councillors stated that these were only “guidelines,” and they had the ability to vary them at will. According to a Supreme Court of B.C. judge, they were wrong.
I’m not going to pretend that I know more about the legalities of this than a Supreme Court judge. Could he have been wrong? I guess we’ll find out in an appeal, and once more information is released.
However, in the meantime, to insinuate that Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development “bullied” their way to the Supreme Court of B.C. and won with a “campaign of misinformation” is a bit of a stretch. Any “misinformation” that was present at the trial could and would have been easily rebutted by the Township of Langley’s capable legal team.
I have no idea of what information the judge used to render his verdict, but I think it’s fair to say that his decision was not based on handouts and flyers that have been criticized for containing “misinformation.” That’s generally not how the Supreme Court of B.C. works.
However, upon reviewing a copy of the Local Government Act; Part 27, Division 5, Section 972, the part that deals specifically with Heritage Conservation Areas, it seems very black and white to me. I encourage everyone to read it.
I want to see a building constructed to cover the “Heritage Hole,” as soon as possible. However, pointing fingers at a group of people who discovered and launched a legal argument over blatant irregularities, and won, is not a solution.
Pointing fingers at a developer who had his plans approved by council is not a solution either. It’s an unfortunate situation this developer is in, and the Township of Langley should be held financially responsible for approving this building which was outside the scope of their legal authority.
If the Township had followed the Local Government Act as all municipal governments are required to, we wouldn’t be in this situation. If the councillors elected by the people of Langley felt that the Fort Langley OCP and Guidelines needed an update, they were well within their rights to propose this.
This process entails detailed community input, public hearings, and Township of Langley-sponsored community open houses. Discussions around OCPs are detailed, inclusive, and based on the future of the community as a whole, not on the merits of one building.
Jesse Brown,
Langley
