Dear Editor,

As the physicians involved in the Fort Professional Building development proposal which was unexpectedly delayed at third reading [Debate heated over design, Jan. 31, Langley Advance], we would like to clarify the positive community benefits of the project, which may not have been clearly articulated.

The proposal seeks to transform an architecturally nondescript commercial building (our current medical building) and the adjacent private land into a vibrant professional campus, anchored at one end by the redesigned medical building and at the other by the Fort Dental Office.

Our vision for the development is as a one-stop destination for diverse professional services, including architectural, medical, and ancillary health services to the residents of North Langley.

The project includes significant landscape redesign in and around our property. That will enhance pedestrian traffic, encourage parking off the main trunk roads into the village, and improve the area between 96th Avenue and the Fort Langley Cemetery.

It is our hope that this improvement to our property will be a catalyst to the development of a pedestrian and cycle corridor, linking the Langley Fine Arts School to the commercial core of Fort Langley via the Fort Langley Park, Spirit Park, and community hall.

As area residents for more than 20 years, we share our fellow citizens' and councillors' concerns about development in Fort Langley proceeding without popular support, heritage approval, or adequate parking.

However, this is not such a development - it is legally appropriate for the zoning, will enhance the western approach to the village, provides parking in excess of minimum requirements, and improves pedestrian access to the commercial core.

There is no local opposition - in fact, our patients and residents of the community have been unanimous and enthusiastic in their support of the enhanced services and improvements to this neglected area of Fort Langley.

Furthermore, despite being in full compliance with heritage guidelines at third reading, we have agreed to modify our design to address some of council's apparent concerns.

Dr. Alister F. Frayne and Dr. Andre R. vanWyk, on behalf of Fort Family Practice Associates