15 petitions

Update posted 3 months ago

Petition to Christopher Atkins, Linda Hepner, City Clerk

Don't eliminate Greenside's natural space with high density development

This petition is for residents and visitors to Surrey BC. We've all seen the negative results of Surrey's high-density development of numerous green spaces: more property crime, traffic congestion, overloaded schools, insufficient parking, noise and the loss of mature trees. Next up is the natural area in the centre of Greenside Estates (development proposal file# 7915-0393-00). Residents walk their dogs in the natural area, play with their children, and watch the ducks in the duck pond. Cramming 236 townhouse and stacked townhouse units into that 6.4 hectare area will destroy this much needed natural space and detract from the livability of the area. Even those who do not directly enjoy the natural area or pond will be affected by this proposed development. Traffic and congestion of the adjacent 60th Avenue, 192 Street, and Fraser Highway will unavoidably worsen. Parents of students who attend Latimer Road Elementary have reason for concern, because this development would put an additional 236 families right next to the school. It would also add additional students to Clayton Heights Secondary, which is already over-capacity by more than 330 students. This additional load may result in larger classes, more portables, or changes to the school catchment areas. This development proposal should not be approved. Development should be lower-density and limited to the portion of the green area that is closest to Fraser Highway so it doesn't interfere with the pond or detract from the livability of the area.If you are a resident of Surrey, please sign this petition and let Christopher Atkins (Surrey Planning & Development Department) at 604-591-4327 or know that you don't want this development. Quote file number 7915-0393-00.To see what this green space and duck pond looks like, check out: see the current development proposal's status and developer's contact information, see:

Zack Blair
699 supporters
Update posted 4 months ago

Petition to Adam Olsen, Marvin Hunt, Andrew Weaver, John horgan, Helen Chan, Jean Lamotagne, Roni Gill, Preet Heer, Pacific Salmon Foundation, Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, Ken Hardie, Shawna, Tory, and Jennifer, Kim Grout, Christopher Lumsden, Christopher Atkins, Lana Popham

STOP the removal of agricultural land in Port Kells (9010 192 ST & 19403 88 Ave)

File: 0749021 There is a proposal to convert over 65 acres of agricultural land into industrial land in a residential neighbourhood of 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 ( 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. Port Kells South 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. This is TIME SENSITIVE.  Attn: Helen Chan City of Surrey Planning and Development  13450 104 Avenue Surrey, BC V3T 1V8 OR email Helen Chan at the City of Surrey, who is in charge of this project, with your comments/concerns at A big THANK YOU for your support!  It was brought to my attention that the address on the sign traces back to Beech Westgard. Their website ( under "current projects" states: "Anniedale, Surrey, BCAnniedale consists of a 100 acre parcel of land with 1km of Hwy 1 frontage and a future 192nd street-Hwy 1 interchange, on the northwest corner of the property. Beech Westgard has assembled the land and is currently in the planning and rezoning phase." But this specific parcel listed on the board only equates to 66.788 acres. So does that mean they have acquired the surrounding land as well? Which is also ALR, except for a little portion in the northwest corner of the property. Which means they would have to pull the remainder of the land out of the ALR to develop it as well. Or have they acquired the land further down 88 Avenue (all the way to the 200 Street interchange) and will create a massive 100 acre industrial complex once they pull this land out of the ALR? If they own that land as well, they should develop that parcel of about 33 acres and leave the ALR alone! Something's not adding up. It's interesting how this specific land was LEFT OUT of the original future development proposal for Port Kells, but is now suddenly being proposed to get rezoned. 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. 

Prabh Mann
834 supporters
Started 5 months ago

Petition to The Township of Muskoka Lakes

Stop over-development in Muskoka on Leonard Lake

Leonard Lake is a beautiful headwater lake that drains into Lake Muskoka, but this last stretch of natural shoreline on the lake, along with endangered species habitat and prime wetland is in danger of being lost. The owners of this property have registered an application to re-zone and sever this mile of shoreline, adding five development lots to the one in existence, and to expand the road, potentially setting the stage for further development. This is the second application that the owners have filed to sever and rezone this property. The current application asks the Township for an exemption to the zoning by-law to get around the rezoning requirement and an Official Plan Amendment to counteract the fact that Leonard Lake is still considered an “over-threshold waterbody”. This application is a disguised waterfront sub-division and we strongly oppose this development. Smaller lakes such as Leonard are vulnerable to development activity and decisions taken by Townships regarding land use changes on small lakes are precedent setting for all of Muskoka. We believe that the fight to prevent the development of this last stretch of undisturbed shoreline on Leonard Lake is a watershed event and worth the engagement of Muskoka residents far beyond the borders of this lake. The approval or denial of this development application will be determined September 12th and 14th at the Township of Muskoka Lakes hearing and public meeting and we need your support to defeat this application. Please help us to protect Leonard Lake and protect Muskoka by signing this petition and where possible, attending the hearings.  Your comments are greatly appreciated, they will be shared with Township decision-makers prior to the hearing. 

Leonard Lakes Stakeholders Association
686 supporters