A commercial development application near the corner of Highway 10 and 132nd Street has spurred city council to call on the provincial government to make the deadly intersection safer.
At a Jan. 14 public hearing, three people voiced concerns about the proposal at 5829 132nd St., citing safety concerns over the “dangerous” intersection that they expected would worsen with an increase in traffic the commercial building would bring.
Surrey teacher and longtime Panorama Ridge resident Carson Drayson expressed his “deep concerns” about the development, revealing his childhood friend Sean Murphy was killed there roughly 18 years ago.
, when he was roughly 18 years old.
Drayson is on the board of the West Panorama Ridge Ratepayers Association which represents about 250 residents in the area, south of the highway. The group as a whole voiced its safety concerns both ahead of and during the public hearing, which focused mostly on the increased traffic the commercial building would bring at the already dangerous intersection.
The WPRRA called for there to be safety upgrades prior to the approval of the application, noting across the street a townhouse development is also underway. The group asked council not to approve the application at this point, and instead send it back to engineering staff to ensure the upgrades can be achieved in concert with the development.
(A rendering of the proposed commercial building at 5829 132nd St. Photo: surrey.ca)
Following the hearing, Surrey Councillor Laurie Guerra said city staff informed her there had been 140 collisions there from 2012-16, and of those, 76 resulted in injuries or death.
Guerra suggested city council direct staff to work with the Ministry of Transportation to achieve safety upgrades at the intersection, prior to approving the application.
Although Councillor Steven Pettigrew initially tabled a motion to refer the application back to staff over these concerns, he rescinded that and instead, council voted to give the application third reading with the caveat that the intersection’s safety be resolved before council would grant the fourth and final stamp of approval.
City staff informed council they could work with the province to hopefully achieve some upgrades. , as the highway is under the jurisdiction of the ministry, not the city.
Land acquisitions would likely be required, council heard, and staff advised that the exercise could take months.
After much discussion, council voted to approve third reading with Councillor Doug Elford opposed.
“I’m also truly concerned about the safety issues regarding the traffic at that neighbourhood. I’m a regular user of that intersection,” Elford said ahead of the vote. “I think there’s a better design out there, just coming off of 132nd (Street) like that. It’s going to be troublesome for people to get in and out of, very tight.”
Mayor Doug McCallum, speaking immediately before the vote, said he knows the intersection well and agreed it is “very dangerous.”
“It’s not designed very well,” he said, later emphasizing that the fix would probably “not be a simple solution.”
“And you’re going to need the complete co-operation of the provincial government,” McCallum stressed.
, suggesting “maybe the speed at Highway 10 should also be looked at.”
If the application receives final approval from council, it would see a 10,839-square-foot, single-storey, multi-tenant building constructed, with five units.
To proceed, the applicant (a numbered company) requires council’s approval to rezone the property from one-acre residential to neighbourhood commercial, as well as a development variance permit to reduce the north, south and east yard setbacks. “in order to achieve a more urban, pedestrian-friendly streetscape and move the building farther away from the residential neighbourhood to the west.” It would have one vehicular access from the existing lane to the north of the property, which is accessed via 132nd Street, according to current plans.
Surrey council’s decision left Drayson disappointed.
“I would’ve liked to see them say, in this case, we’re not going to pass this development,” he said. “The whole council seems very pro-development…. At some point, common sense has to prevail, and they say, ‘Sorry, you’re going to have to use your land you purchased and do something else,'” he added, stating he believed a single-family development would be best-suited for that property.
amy.reid@surreynowleader.comLike us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram and follow Amy on Twitter
