REPORT TO

MAYOR AND COUNCIL

PRESENTED: MARCH 23, 2009 - REGULAR MEETING REPORT: 09-35

FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION FILE: 11-06-0179
SUBJECT: REZONING BYLAW NO. 4693 (JEANNOTTE/TANZITE)
REVIEW OF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS RAISED AT
PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN HOUSE

RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Council receive this report entitled “Rezoning Bylaw No. 4693 (Jeannotte/Tanzite) -
Review of Comments and Concerns Raised at Public Hearing and Open House”, for
information; and further

That Council give third reading to Bylaw No. 4693, subject to the development being in
substantial compliance with the proposed “alternate” layout plan presented in this report; and
subject to the following development pre-requisites being satisfied prior to final reading:

1. Registration of a restrictive covenant requiring that on-site significant trees not be removed or
disturbed (except where necessary for the installation of services) until final tree retention,
protection and replacement details are addressed to the acceptance of the Manager of Parks
Design and Development;
2. Registration of a restrictive covenant requiring provision of an exterior design control
agreement to be entered into at the subdivision approval stage; and,
3. Payment of supplemental rezoning application fee.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On September 29, 2008 Council considered third reading of Bylaw No. 4693 rezoning 0.40 ha
(1 acre) of land located at 21726 – 49A Avenue to Residential Zone R-1D to accommodate a
five (5) lot single family subdivision. Council did not give third reading to the bylaw, but instead
referred the application back to staff to address the comments and concerns raised by the
public at the September 15, 2008 public hearing. In response to the concerns raised at the
public hearing, the applicant submitted a panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout) which
proposes five (5) single family lots: two (2) lots fronting 49A Avenue and three (3) lots with
panhandle access to 49A Avenue. The panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout) and the
half cul-de-sac subdivision plan (original layout) were presented to the area residents at a public
open house held on February 5, 2009. At the open house, the majority of the area residents in
attendance preferred the new panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout) over the half cul-de-
sac subdivision plan (original layout). Staff recommend that Bylaw No. 4693 be given third
reading, subject to the development being in substantial compliance with the panhandle
REZONING BYLAW NO. 4693 (JEANNOTTE/TANZITE)
REVIEW OF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS RAISED AT
PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN HOUSE
Page 2 . . .

subdivision plan (alternate layout) and subject to the completion of three (3) development
prerequisites prior to final reading. Alternatively, Council may require that another Public
Hearing be held.

PURPOSE:
As requested by Council, this report provides a staff review of the comments and concerns
raised by the public at the September 15, 2008 public hearing for Bylaw No. 4693 and at the
subsequent open house held by the Township on February 5, 2009.
REZONING BYLAW NO. 4693 (JEANNOTTE/TANZITE)
REVIEW OF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS RAISED AT
PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN HOUSE
Page 3 . . .

PRELIMINARY HALF CUL-DE-SAC SUBDIVISION PLAN – SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT

(Original Layout)

PRELIMINARY PANHANDLE SUBDIVISION PLAN – SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT

(Alternate Layout)

49AAvenue
REZONING BYLAW NO. 4693 (JEANNOTTE/TANZITE)
REVIEW OF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS RAISED AT
PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN HOUSE
Page 4 . . .

ORIGINAL CONCEPTUAL BLOCK PLAN – SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT

ALTERNATE CONCEPTUAL BLOCK PLAN – SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT

REZONING BYLAW NO. 4693 (JEANNOTTE/TANZITE)
REVIEW OF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS RAISED AT
PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN HOUSE
Page 5 . . .

BACKGROUND:
At its September 29, 2008 regular meeting, Council considered third reading of Bylaw No. 4693
rezoning a 0.40 ha (1 acre) of land located at 21726 – 49A Avenue to Residential Zone R-1D to
accommodate a five (5) lot single family subdivision. Council did not give third reading to the
bylaw, but instead referred the application back to staff to address the comments and concerns
raised by the public at the September 15, 2008 public hearing and to hold a Township
sponsored open house with area residents.

Attached to this report, for Council’s information, are the original Community Development
Division report to Council dated July 28, 2008 (Attachment A), the minutes from the September
15, 2008 public hearing (Attachment B), and the minutes from the September 29, 2008 regular
meeting (Attachment C).

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
In accordance with Council’s direction, staff have reviewed the comments and concerns raised
by the public at the September 15, 2008 public hearing. Comments and concerns primarily
focused on the layout of the proposed subdivision plan with respect to the location of the
proposed half cul-de-sac, lot orientation, tree protection, drainage, traffic, emergency vehicle
access and removal of existing structures. Area residents also expressed concern with the
conceptual block plan showing the future subdivision potential of surrounding properties based
on the proponents half cul-de-sac subdivision plan.

In light of the strong opposition to the applicant’s original conceptual block plan expressed by
the area residents, the applicant held several smaller and informal open houses with area
residents (November 28, December 1 and December 2, 2008) to discuss possible alternative
subdivision plans / layouts. Evolving out of this process was the panhandle subdivision plan
(alternate layout), which the majority of the area residents considered best addressed the
comments and concerns raised at the public hearing.

Panhandle Subdivision Plan (Alternate Layout):

The panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout) proposes five (5) single family lots, the same
number of lots proposed by the half cul-de-sac subdivision plan (original layout). The
panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout) proposes two (2) lots fronting 49A Avenue and
three (3) lots with panhandle access to 49A Avenue. The three (3) panhandle lots will share a
driveway eight (8) metres wide with a small bulb at the end. This subdivision plan differs
significantly from the half cul-de-sac subdivision plan (original layout) which proposed three (3)
lots fronting 49A Avenue and two (2) lots fronting a proposed half cul-de-sac along the western
property line.

The alternate conceptual block plan, which was submitted in support of the panhandle
subdivision plan (alternate layout), proposes that surrounding properties with remaining
subdivision potential be allowed to subdivide with panhandle access rather than introducing a
cul-de-sac. Generally, this plan was favoured on the basis of it allowing surrounding properties
to subdivide independently with less impact on adjacent neighbours, whether they wished to
subdivide or not.
REZONING BYLAW NO. 4693 (JEANNOTTE/TANZITE)
REVIEW OF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS RAISED AT
PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN HOUSE
Page 6 . . .

Public Open House:

In accordance with Council’s direction, staff held a public open house on February 5, 2009 to
provide an opportunity for the public to review both the half cul-de-sac subdivision plan (original
layout) and the newly conceived panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout). An open house
invitation letter (dated January 21, 2009) was mailed to all persons that received a notification
for the September 15, 2008 public hearing and was also mailed to all persons that provided a
submission at the public hearing. The open house invitation letter (Attachment D) included a
brief description of the application, a copy of the half cul-de-sac subdivision plan (original
layout), a copy of the panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout), and a questionnaire for
those persons unable to attend the open house.

The open house was held February 5, 2009 between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the Murrayville
Hall (21667 – 48 Avenue). Community Development Division staff and the applicant attended
the open house to answer questions and give the public an opportunity to provide comments.
26 people attended the open house (as per the sign-in sheet) with 22 questionnaires received,
including those submitted by persons unable to attend the open house. The sign-in sheet, the
questionnaires and a summary of the responses are provided as attachments to this report
(Attachment E).

As per the completed questionnaires received, the majority of the area residents preferred the
panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout) over the half cul-de-sac subdivision plan (original
layout). One (1) person preferred the half cul-de-sac subdivision plan (original layout), fourteen
(14) persons preferred the panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout), ten (10) persons
preferred neither layout, two (2) persons preferred neither layout, but preferred the panhandle
subdivision plan (alternate layout) over the half cul-de-sac subdivision plan (original layout), and
one (1) person had no preference. Staff note that seven (7) of the nine (9) surrounding
properties with further subdivision potential (as indicated on the conceptual block plan) prefer
the panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout). The owners of properties opposed to the
panhandle subdivision plan (alternate layout) either have already rezoned and subdivided to
Residential Zone R-1D lot sizes or are opposed to any further development in the area.
REZONING BYLAW NO. 4693 (JEANNOTTE/TANZITE)
REVIEW OF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS RAISED AT
PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN HOUSE
Page 7 . . .

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
As requested by Council, this report addresses the comments and concerns raised by the public
at the September 15, 2008 public hearing. Staff note that the proposed panhandle subdivision
plan (alternate layout) complies with both the Murrayville Community Plan and the proposed
Residential Zone R-1D zoning. Although Council has the option of requiring another public
hearing, staff recommend that Bylaw No. 4693 be given third reading, subject to the
development being in substantial compliance with the panhandle subdivision plan (alternate
layout) and subject to the completion of three (3) development prerequisites prior to final
reading. Subdivision details will be addressed at the subdivision stage pursuant to the
Township’s Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw and Policy.

Respectfully submitted,

Patrick Ward
DEVELOPMENT PLANNER
for
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

PJW

ATTACHMENT A July 28, 2008 Report to Council

ATTACHMENT B September 15, 2008 Public Hearing Minutes
ATTACHMENT C September 29, 2008 Third Reading Minutes
ATTACHMENT D January 21, 2009 Open House Invitation Letter
ATTACHMENT E February 5, 2009 Open House Sign In Sheet, Questionnaires and
Summary of Responses
 Attachment A
REPORT TO

MAYOR AND COUNCIL

PRESENTED: JULY 28, 2008 - REGULAR MEETING REPORT: 08-135

FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION FILE: 11-06-0179
SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION RZ100311
(JEANNOTTE / TANZITE)

PROPOSAL:
Rezone 0.40 ha (1 acre) of
land located at 21726 – 49A
Avenue to Residential Zone
R-1D to accommodate a five
(5) lot single family
subdivision.

RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY:
That Council give first and
second reading to Bylaw No.
4693 with completion of
three (3) development
prerequisites.

RATIONALE:
The proposed rezoning
complies with the provisions
of the Murrayville Community
Plan.

F:\data\council\2008 Agenda\07-28\Regular Agenda\E3_cd Rezoning Application RZ100311 Jeannotte Tanzite.doc

REZONING APPLICATION RZ100311
(JEANNOTTE / TANZITE)
Page 2 . . .

RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Council give first and second reading to Bylaw No. 4693 rezoning 0.40 ha (1 acre) of land
located at 21726 – 49A Avenue to Residential Zone R-1D to accommodate a five (5) lot single
family subdivision, subject to the following development prerequisites being satisfied prior to
final reading:

1. Registration of a non-disturbance restrictive covenant requiring that no significant trees be

removed or disturbed onsite (except where necessary for the installation of services) until
tree retention, protection and replacement details are addressed to the satisfaction of the
Manager of Parks Design and Development at time of subdivision;
2. Registration of a restrictive covenant requiring provision of an exterior design control
agreement to be entered into at the subdivision approval stage; and further,
3. Payment of supplemental rezoning application fee.

That Council authorize staff to schedule the required public hearing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Quinn Jeannotte has applied to rezone 0.40 ha (1 acre) of land located at 21726 – 49A Avenue
to Residential Zone R-1D. The rezoning will facilitate the subsequent subdivision of five (5) fully
serviced single family lots. The Murrayville Community Plan designates the lands as “Single
Family Two” allowing subdivisions having a minimum lots size of 650 m2 (7,000 ft2). Staff
supports the rezoning proposal as it complies with the Murrayville Community Plan.

PURPOSE:
This report is to advise and make recommendations with respect to rezoning application number
RZ100311.

F:\data\council\2008 Agenda\07-28\Regular Agenda\E3_cd Rezoning Application RZ100311 Jeannotte Tanzite.doc

REZONING APPLICATION RZ100311
(JEANNOTTE / TANZITE)
Page 3 . . .

SUBJECT

F:\data\council\2008 Agenda\07-28\Regular Agenda\E3_cd Rezoning Application RZ100311 Jeannotte Tanzite.doc

REZONING APPLICATION RZ100311
(JEANNOTTE / TANZITE)
Page 4 . . .

ZONING BYLAW NO. 2500

R-1D
R-1D

R-1D

F:\data\council\2008 Agenda\07-28\Regular Agenda\E3_cd Rezoning Application RZ100311 Jeannotte Tanzite.doc

REZONING APPLICATION RZ100311
(JEANNOTTE / TANZITE)
Page 5 . . .

Preliminary Subdivision Plan – SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT

217A
Street

F:\data\council\2008 Agenda\07-28\Regular Agenda\E3_cd Rezoning Application RZ100311 Jeannotte Tanzite.doc

REZONING APPLICATION RZ100311
(JEANNOTTE / TANZITE)
Page 6 . . .

Conceptual Block Plan – SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT

217A
Street

49 Avenue

48A Avenue

F:\data\council\2008 Agenda\07-28\Regular Agenda\E3_cd Rezoning Application RZ100311 Jeannotte Tanzite.doc

REZONING APPLICATION RZ100311
(JEANNOTTE / TANZITE)
Page 7 . . .

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Owner: Tanzite Ventures Inc.
4038 – 200B Street
Langley, BC V3A 1N9

Applicant: Quinn Jeannotte

2201 – 204A Street
Langley, BC V2Z 2A2

Legal Description: Lot 37 Section 6 Township 11

New Westminster District Plan 39985
PID: 008-695-938

Location: 21726 – 49A Avenue

Area: 0.40 ha (1acre)

Existing Zoning: Suburban Residential Zone SR-1

(minimum lot size 3,716 m2 / 0.92 acre)

Proposed Zoning: Residential Zone R-1D

(minimum lot size 650 m2 /7,000 ft2).

Murrayville Community Plan: Single Family Two

(maximum density 15 units per ha / 6 units per
acre; minimum lot size 650 m2 /7,000 ft2)

E.S.A. Designation: E.S.A.# 66 – Murrayville Urban Area (Rating - #3)

BACKGROUND:
The subject site is designated “Single Family Two” in the Murrayville Community Plan, allowing
a maximum residential density of 15 units per hectare (6 units per acre), at a minimum lot size
of 650 m2 (7,000 ft2). The current SR-1 zoning is reflective of minimum lot sizes in Murrayville
prior to development and the provision of full urban services. The subject lot is one of only four
(4) properties in the area that have not been rezoned to R-1D.

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS:
The proponent is applying to rezone approximately 0.40 ha (1.0 acre) of land located at 21726 –
49A Avenue to Residential Zone R-1D to accommodate a subsequent subdivision of five (5)
single family lots. The subject property is currently occupied by one single family home that will
be removed to accommodate the subdivision.

Adjacent Uses:
The subject site fronts 49A Avenue and is surrounded by single family homes zoned R-1D and
SR-1 (with lots ranging in size from 650m2 to 4,047m2). Although the lots to the east have
developed at the density permitted in the Murrayville Community Plan, the adjacent lots to the
west and south have further subdivision potential.

F:\data\council\2008 Agenda\07-28\Regular Agenda\E3_cd Rezoning Application RZ100311 Jeannotte Tanzite.doc

REZONING APPLICATION RZ100311
(JEANNOTTE / TANZITE)
Page 8 . . .

Density:
The subject site is designated “Single Family Two” in the Murrayville Community Plan, allowing
a maximum density of 15 units per hectare (6 units per acre), at a minimum lot size of 650 m2
(7,000 ft2). The applicant proposes a subsequent subdivision application of five (5) single family
lots at a proposed density of 12 units per hectare (5 units per acre) with a minimum lot size of
650 m2 (7,000 ft2).

Subdivision:
A preliminary subdivision layout has been submitted in support of the rezoning proposing the
creation of five (5) single family residential lots. The applicant has also prepared a conceptual
block plan indicating the relationship of the subject site to the adjacent undeveloped lands. As
shown on the conceptual block plan, the introduction of a cul-de-sac to the block protects the
future subdivision potential of these surrounding currently over-sized properties. Subdivision
details, including dedication of the cul-de-sac, will be addressed at time of subdivision pursuant
to the Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw and Policy.

Servicing:
There are no servicing requirements for the proposed rezoning. Existing services are adequate
for the proposed use. At time of subdivision, a Servicing Agreement will be required to secure
construction of the east half of the proposed cul-de-sac (217A Street), installation of full urban
municipal services (water, sanitary, storm) to service the proposed lots in accordance with the
Township’s Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw, and erosion and sediment control
works in accordance with the Township’s Erosion and Sediment Control Bylaw.

Tree Protection:
In compliance with the Tree Protection Bylaw, the applicant has submitted a tree survey and
tree summary schedule indicating that there are three (3) significant trees located on the subject
site. Based on the preliminary subdivision layout, all of the significant trees will likely be
removed. As a result, the applicant will be required to plant 30 replacement trees at time of
subdivision. Registration of a non-disturbance restrictive covenant requiring that no significant
trees be removed or disturbed onsite (except where necessary for the installation of services)
until tree retention, protection and replacement details are addressed to the satisfaction of the
Manager of Parks Design and Development at time of subdivision is required as a condition of
final reading.

Transit:
Translink currently operates two Community Shuttles through Murrayville with stops on 48
Avenue, as well as a regular bus route along Fraser Highway. The road layout for Murrayville
has been designed to accommodate future transit routes in accordance with Translink’s
operating policy / procedures, which Council is given an opportunity to review each year.

Environment:
The Township’s Environmentally Sensitive Areas Study identifies the lands as forming part of
the Murrayville Urban Area. The applicant will be required to provide full urban services as well
as a storm water management plan and sediment control measures through a servicing
agreement. The provision of these items along with compliance with the Township’s Tree
Protection Policy satisfies the management guidelines identified in the Township’s
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Study. There are no watercourses onsite.

F:\data\council\2008 Agenda\07-28\Regular Agenda\E3_cd Rezoning Application RZ100311 Jeannotte Tanzite.doc

REZONING APPLICATION RZ100311
(JEANNOTTE / TANZITE)
Page 9 . . .

Schools:
The subject site is located within the catchment area for James Hill Elementary School,
approximately 1.5 kilometres southeast of the subject site. Langley Fundamental Elementary
School is located 1 block north of the subject site. High school students will attend Langley
Secondary School.

Parks:
There are two parks in the vicinity of the subject site. Denny Ross Memorial Park located
southeast of the site on Old Yale Road. Porter Park is located west of the site on 215 Street.

Development Prerequisites:
Prior to final reading of the rezoning bylaw, the following items must be completed:

1. Registration of a non-disturbance restrictive covenant requiring that no significant trees

be removed or disturbed onsite (except where necessary for the installation of services)
until tree retention, protection and replacement details are addressed to the satisfaction
of the Manager of Parks Design and Development at time of subdivision;
2. Registration of a restrictive covenant requiring provision of an exterior design control
agreement to be entered into at the subdivision approval stage; and further,
3. Payment of supplemental rezoning application fee.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning application as the proposed development complies
with the land use and density policies of the Murrayville Community Plan. Subdivision details
will be addressed at the subdivision stage pursuant to the Township’s Subdivision and
Development Control Bylaw and Policy.

Respectfully submitted,

Teresa Hanson
DEVELOPMENT PLANNER
for
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

TEH/the

F:\data\council\2008 Agenda\07-28\Regular Agenda\E3_cd Rezoning Application RZ100311 Jeannotte Tanzite.doc

 ATTACHMENT B
September 15, 2008
Special Meeting for Public Hearing and Development Permits Minutes - 401 -

B. PUBLIC HEARING

3. Rezoning Application RZ100311

(Jeannotte/Tanzite)
Bylaw 4693
Report 08-135
File CD 11-06-0179

“Township of Langley Zoning Bylaw 1987 No. 2500 Amendment (JEANNOTTE)

Bylaw 2008 No. 4693”.

Explanation - Bylaw No. 4693

J. Geraghty, Manager Development Planning, explained that Bylaw No. 4693

rezones 0.40 ha (1 acre) of land located at 21726 – 49A Avenue to Residential Zone
R-1D to accommodate a five (5) lot single family subdivision. He noted that 79
Public Hearing notices were mailed to area residents.

Explanation by the proponent.

Quinn Jeannotte, 2201 – 204A Street, was in attendance and commented on width
to depth ratio, in-fill sites, impact of homes facing 49A Avenue, a root barrier being
applied to aid tree preservation, and advised that 38 additional trees would be
planted.

Councillor Bateman left the meeting at 8:15 p.m. and rejoined the meeting at
8:17 p.m.

Submissions regarding Bylaw No. 4693 from the public.

1. Cleve Stordy, 21727 – 48A Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he
had made an enquiry at the Township of Langley to subdivide his property and
was advised that he could not. He continued that Mr. Jeannotte met with
Mr. Stordy and his neighbours in early 2008, advising them of the proposed
project and possible consolidation of excess rear yard lots. He submitted a 16-
signature petition in opposition of the proposal and attached an alternate
proposal for development in the area. He expressed concerns relative to lot
layout requiring removal of many existing structures, lot orientation, lack of good
community planning, and lack of heritage consideration.
2. Kim Stordy, 21727 – 48A Avenue, was in attendance and commented that the
neighbourhood and community should work together to plan a development
through mutual cooperation.
3. Jean and Alan Gregson, 21692 – 49A Avenue, were in attendance and
commented that they had concerns regarding tree preservation on the east side
of their property, fencing, drainage, and compensation should there be any
damage to their trees or fencing.
4. April Miko, 21654 – 49A Avenue, was in attendance and commented that she
was speaking on behalf of her mother, Sharlene Stewart, who had expressed
concerns relative to lack of notification, effect of development on the back of her
property, protection of stream at the rear of her property, subdivision
September 15, 2008
Special Meeting for Public Hearing and Development Permits Minutes - 402 -

B. PUBLIC HEARING
possibilities, and drainage issues.

5. Doug Speranza, 21693 – 46A Avenue, was in attendance and commented that
he had concerns relative to tree preservation, location of proposed road,
drainage issues, and that he was opposed to the project.
6. Mr. and Mrs. David Lapierre, 4849 - 217B Street, were in attendance and
commented that they had concerns relative to tree preservation, historical
atmosphere, decrease in property value, and loss of privacy. Mrs. Lapierre
continued that she also spoke on behalf of Mrs. Pam Erickson at 21734 – 48
Avenue in saying that the neighbours would like to participate in a public open
house.
7. Doug Heck, 21679 - 48A Avenue, was in attendance and commented that he
was opposed to the proposal.
8. Margaret Wallbank, 21665 – 48A Avenue, was in attendance and commented
that she had concerns relative to lack of notification
9. Robert Garden, 21651 – 48A Avenue was in attendance and commented that he
had concerns relative to lot layout and skewing of property lines, access for
emergency vehicles, and advised that he was opposed to the proposal.

Written Submissions regarding Bylaw No. 4693 from the public.

The following persons had expressed opposition in writing regarding Bylaw

No. 4693:

1. Opal and Robert Garden, 21651 – 48A Avenue

2. Margaret and Lorne Wallbank, 21665 – 48A Avenue
3. Pat and Doug Heck, 21679 – 48A Avenue
4. Barb and Vince Moropito, 4904 – 216 Street
5. Laurel and Raymond Matthew, 21687 - 48A Avenue
6. Kim and Doug Speranza, 21693 – 48A Avenue
7. Kris and Doug Hyde, 21745 – 48A Avenue
8. Kim and Cleve Stordy, 21727 – 48A Avenue.

Councillors Ferguson and Fox left the meeting at 8:42 p.m. and rejoined the meeting
at 8:43 p.m.

4. Rezoning Application RZ100307 and

Development Permit DP100542
(Sherwood Park Homes Ltd.)
Bylaw No. 4669
Report 08-134
File CD 08-14-0163

“Township of Langley Zoning Bylaw 1987 No. 2500 Amendment (Sherwood Park
Homes Ltd.) Bylaw 2008 No. 4669”.
 ATTACHMENT C
September 29, 2008
Regular Council Meeting Minutes - 429 -

G. BYLAWS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIRD READING

Development;
d) Landscaping and boulevard treatment to be secured by letter of credit at the
building permit stage;
e) Signage to be in substantial compliance with Schedule “G”;
f) All garbage facilities to be located within buildings or screened;
g) Rooftop mechanical equipment to be located so as not to be visible from adjacent
roads, or alternatively to be screened from view by compatible architectural
treatments;
h) Compliance with the Township’s Exterior Lighting Impact Policy (submission of an
exterior lighting impact plan) to the acceptance of the Manager of Permits and
Licences;
i) Submission of a final CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design)
report addressing incorporation of CPTED principles into the development design
to the acceptance of the Manager of Development Planning.

Although not part of the Development Permit requirements, the applicant is advised
that prior to issuance of a building permit the following items will need to be finalized:

l) Payment of supplemental Development Permit application fees.

CARRIED

Councillor Richter opposed

6. Rezoning Application RZ100311

(Jeannotte / Tanzite)
Bylaw No. 4693
Report 08-135
File CD 11-06-0179

Moved by Councillor Long,

Seconded by Councillor Ferguson,
That Council give third reading to “Township of Langley Zoning Bylaw 1987 No.
2500 Amendment (JEANNOTTE) Bylaw 2008 No. 4693”.

REFERRAL

Moved by Councillor Long,

Seconded by Councillor Vickberg,
That Rezoning Application RZ100311 (Jeannotte / Tanzite) be referred to staff to
address the comments received at the September 15, 2008 Public Hearing.
CARRIED
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES (FEBRUARY 5, 2009 OPEN HOUSE)

(NOTE: Some questionnaires were received from properties outside this map area)

Subject

Prefer the Original Layout (half cul-de-sac subdivision plan) (4%)

Prefer the Alternate Layout (panhandle subdivision plan) (52%)

Prefer Neither Layout (37%)

Prefer Neither Layout, but Prefer the Alternate Layout over the Original Layout (7%)

No Response

Conceptual Block Plan area

(NOTE: Percentage values based on number of persons and include responses outside the map area)