STOP the removal of agricultural land in South Port Kells (9010 192 ST & 19403 88 Ave)
0 have signed. Let’s get to 1,000!
AGRICULTURAL land is for FOOD PRODUCTION, NOT industrial businesses! It is part of the agricultural land RESERVE for a reason. Developers have been hanging onto this land for years; not farming it. Could they be awaiting soil degradation to build a stronger argument for it not being "viable farmland," thus strengthening their argument to the ALC to have this removed from the ALR and rezoned to industrial?
Someone tried to do the same with this property years ago, and failed, now here we are again with new developers.
There is a proposal to convert over 65 acres of agricultural land into industrial land in a residential neighbourhood of South Port Kells.
Project number: 15-0196-00
Land that was NOT originally part of the Port Kells NCP and was to be maintained as part of the agricultural land reserve (ALR).
The development is being proposed at 9010 192 Street and 19403 88 Avenue. The land is located in front of and behind dozens of homes, beside and behind Art's Nursery, across from Port Kells Park and just steps from Port Kells Elementary School. There are 2 creeks running through the property as well (Bartesko Brook, which is red-coded class A, and Latimer Creek). The City of Surrey defines Class A (RED) as "Inhabited by salmonoids year round or potentialls inhabited year round."
The City of Surrey is supposed to be preserving agricultural land and conserving salmon bearing streams. They should NOT be allowing ANY developers to remove ANY land from the agricultural land reserve. Such proposals should be rejected. Once you allow one developer to pull land out of the ALR, others will be quick to follow. How will you deny them after approving someone else? It will only be a matter of time before that entire chunk of land gets pulled out of the ALR, along with other properties in the neighbourhood.
The City of Surrey website (https://www.surrey.ca/city-services/1320.aspx) states:
"The City of Surrey is committed to protecting and enhancing natural and environmentally sensitive areas from harmful development."
This is an environmentally sensitive area, so why the discrepancy? If someone wants to construct a single family home and there is a creek or agricultural land in close proximity, there are strict rules and regulations. Yet developers can build on agricultural land and near/over creeks? There is already a lot of industrial development on the other side of the highway (Port Kells North) and it should remain there. South Port Kells should remain residential and predominately ALR. There is no need to encroach on a sensitive, protected, environmental area.
Furthermore, Port Kells Park is across the street and Port Kells Elementary is located around the corner. Building an industrial complex steps from an elementary school and a park is NOT a safe decision, considering an industrial complex will bring thousands of cars and trucks into the area. Not only will it increase pollution and damage to the environment, it will also increase the risk factor for children and their families.
There are various reasons that this proposal should be denied. PLEASE do NOT allow the removal of anymore land that is part of the ALR!!! Allowing this development will change the configurations of this neighbourhood forever and have disastrous impacts on the environment!!! You will make a HUGE mistake that you will NOT be able to undo!!!
Along with signing this petition, PLEASE write letters to the City of Surrey.
Attn: Misty Jorgensen
City of Surrey Planning and Development
13450 104 Avenue
OR email Misty Jorgensen at the City of Surrey, who is in charge of this project, with your comments/concerns at MRJorgensen@surrey.ca
Make sure to CC:
You can also call her at 604-598-5834.
The original planner assigned to this was Helen Chan, but she has left the City of Surrey, so now Misty has taken over this file.
A big THANK YOU for your support!
It was brought to my attention, by a resident in the community, that the address on the sign traces back to Beech Westgard.
Turns out, the developers were already part of a meeting at the city regarding this matter. Details of the meeting are listed on pages 5 and 6 of this document.
"The proposal does not comply with several aspects of Council Policy No. O-51 (Policy for Considering Applications for Exclusion of Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve), including the requirements for a 2:1 replacement ratio or 1:1 replacement ratio with compensation supplemented by other improvements."
So as of their meeting in September 2017, these developers weren't proposing either replacement or a combination of replacement and compensation. They wanted to only provide compensation.
It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.
Complete your signature
0 have signed. Let’s get to 1,000!