Dear Editor:
I am totally opposed to the development of iCasa’s condos, disguised as an aging in place project, on the Banks Crescent property presently zoned agriculture.
It is too big and in the wrong location.
I was told this was not the time to state my feelings about the project, but to only ask questions: I disagree. It is nearly impossible to separate the two but I did try:
First: Is council worried about liability. and if not, why not?
It has taken 10 months to get our new topless glass deck enclosure through Summerland’s codes and bylaws, all due to an accident somewhere in Canada that has everyone questioning the safety of topless glass on decks.
One of your own building inspectors certainly understands liability as he told us last fall, “Face it folks, it is all about liability for the District of Summerland.” Are you concerned about liability regarding landslides, sink holes and the impact on our local hatchery?
Second: Keep the present zoning designation for agriculture. While observing the council meetings it is apparent to me you wish to practice due diligence in all your duties of responsibility.
If you pass the rezoning from Agriculture to High Density Residential, you will be remembered as the council that made an unforgivable error in judgement. I quote Peter Waterman in 2014 who said: “The 2008 Agricultural Plan needs to be read carefully. A key phrase in the plan states, “The agricultural industry must be reassured of the sustainability of its soils and water and protection from the urban and rural growth pressure.”
Can you come up with an alternative plan to save the 14 acres for agriculture – one that won’t impact the hatchery or devastate the surrounding area because it is too huge? Is there a committee or task force that can look at alternatives?
Third: I have lived at this address for 25 years and was told repeatedly that the designation for this “Red Zone High Hazard area” across the street from our home would never be developed.
Now a developer and private land owner have picked it out as ideal and Geotech reports gave you their best guess and said it “should be safe because they are not building on the red zone cliffs.”
What exactly has changed today to make the Red Zone safe now?
Fourth: Summerland Climate Action Plan 2011 states we will reduce GHG Emissions by 2020. With “on road transportation” traffic making up 55% per cent of Summerland’s Source of GHG Emission in 2007, the added volume of traffic on Solly Road and Latimer Avenue from this development will greatly add to those GHG Emissions. How do you plan on meeting your goals of reduction by 2020?
Fifth: I understand an environmental assessment has been done. Who did this? Can I have a copy of this assessment and the report that staff prepared for Council regarding it and how soon can I expect to get it?
Barbara Robson
Summerland
