Don’t let saving trees result in problem development in South Langley

A Fernridge letter writer suggests another way to deal with saving trees during development.

Dear Editor,

Unintended density outcomes

Re: Letter: Brookswood/Fernridge… Resident vows density fight, April 13 letter by David Chambers.

Mr. Chambers opposes “high density cookie cutter development like Willoughby”. I assume he is referring to the single family residential zones where he doesn’t want small lot compact housing with parking problems.

As permanent/future residents in the Brookswood/Fernridge undeveloped area who’s property will be directly affected, we also do not want small lot compact housing.

The existing 1987 Community Plan offers generous minimum lot sizes of 7,000 sq. ft. of which a handful of subdivision applications in authorized service plan areas are in progress. These may prove to be the best subdivisions.

With the new updated Community Plan there are many factors to consider in determining various lot sizes to strike a reasonable balance, including ‘affordability’.

It is possible in the new CP there could be a mixture of lot sizes from 5,000 to 7,000 sq. ft.

Ironically, Mr. Chambers BFCA activist groups effort to save trees will have unintended results that they are against. It appears the planners intentions are to trade trees for smaller lots.

Mr. Developer, if you save this cluster of tall trees over here, we will let you have the same amount of lots over here on the same property, only they may be smaller 4,000 sq. ft. lots. (Compact lots with parking problems).

I believe it is a bad bargain to screw up the long-term design of a neighborhood for the sake of trees just because they are tall. I say save big healthy trees where practical but plant new trees in new subdivisions in locations where they are likely to survive.

Roland Seguin, Fernridge