Trees have been felled on a north Langley property where an Aldergrove developer is building two houses on each lot

Trees have been felled on a north Langley property where an Aldergrove developer is building two houses on each lot

Council defers decision on two-house lot rezoning

Residents upset over a north Langley development have to wait a bit longer for answers as Township staff take a closer look at the issue

Residents in northwest Langley who are eager for Township council’s decision on two rezoning bylaws will have to continue waiting.

Council voted 7-2 on April 25 to refer back to staff the bylaws that would alter rural zoning on 37 parcels of land, located between 201 Street on the west, 203A Street on the east, the CN Rail lines in the north and 98 Avenue in the south.

The RU-1 zoning on land mostly occupied by mobile homes has been a cause of contention between residents in a nearby subdivision, and an Aldergrove builder who is in the process of constructing two houses on one lot.

Residents want council to change the zoning to residential to prevent two houses from being built on one lot, while the builder wants it to remain as it is, saying buyers have been keen to purchase his homes.

“This is a very challenging thing,” said Coun. Charlie Fox.

“I’m fearful what you’ll end up with is not a neighbourhood. You’re going to end up with a mixed bag of everything. And it’s not going to accomplish what we really set out to accomplish, which is to make a nice little neighbourhood out of this, which actually joins to the neighbourhood in the east.

“I’m just afraid that the outcome might not be what we anticipated in the first place.”

Coun. Michelle Sparrow agreed, adding that the solution to the problem did not lie within the bylaws in front of them.

“We heard from a lot of the public and a lot of them were from the developed area over to the east, and they were supportive of development and actually wanting some change within that area, but not happy with how some of the two houses on one lot (regulations) have been implemented so far,” she said.

“I think there’s a middle ground answer that addresses the concerns that the public brought forward, which is how the development is occurring.

“Creating a neighbourhood in the area that is undeveloped now is probably a better solution than leaving it as it is, where there are no streetlights and no sidewalks.”

Coun. Petrina Arnason asked if a moratorium could be placed on any further development in that area until the referral is processed by staff and brought back to council.

Most of council agreed, and the moratorium was passed with Coun. David Davis opposed.