Editor:
The following recommendation from the City of Surrey appeared in the Dec. 30 Peace Arch News: “Have your say on development applications in your community…..Whether you are opposed or in support of a development application, now is the time to provide input.” I am responding to this statement.
I live on the north side of 26 Avenue in Grandview Heights. Homes on this side of the street are estate homes on rural-designated properties. The south side of the street is largely forest or farmland that has been purchased for residential development.
It took the united action of our neighbours nearly two years to negotiate an agreement with the first developer and the City of Surrey. Our only mandate was to have the new development respect our existing neighbourhood as required by the City.
We compromised greatly during these negotiations but were eventually able to achieve improvements to the developer’s original plan to build 12 duplexes across from four single-family homes. In consideration of the incalculable hours we spent trying to maintain the character of our neighbourhood for all residents and pedestrian traffic to enjoy, we hoped that our effort would be acknowledged and respected by all developers who purchased land on the south side of our street. It was by the second developer, who co-operated to amend his plans to respect our initiative.
However, it became apparent that other developers may not consider it a priority to maintain the standard of our neighbourhood and so an online neighbourhood association was organized to help keep everyone informed of new development plans.
However, the extensive time spent by several individuals, in particular, working on behalf of our entire neighbourhood, was not very successful in influencing the City to require developers to follow its own expectation that new developments must compliment or improve existing neighbourhoods.
The third developer’s proposal to build duplexes across from our estate acreages was accepted by city hall despite our very clear opposition to it. Three hundred fifty signatures obtained in a petition over a two-week period last summer and the voices of multiple speakers at city hall was not an adequate display of opposition to have the duplex application denied.
So, we “had our say” and we provided our “input,” but what was the purpose of the hundreds of hours for no negotiating opportunities with this third developer? Could we possibly have done any more to express our opposition to this development?
Sandra Houghton, Surrey
