Skip to content

LETTER: Public does not agree with development

The Banks property, while not in the ALR, is not suitable for a large condominium development
web1_170316-SUM-Typewriter

Dear Editor:

Council must realize by now that a large portion of the citizens of Summerland do not agree with the location of the Banks development. One of the reasons your council was elected was because you all seemed to care about preserving agricultural land.

While the Banks property is not in the Agricultural Land Reserve, it is not suitable for a large condominium development.

Its proposed location is not in the Official Community Plan.

Two landslides have occurred there; red zone is all around; the access road is narrow and would have to be widened; but most of all, the Fish Hatchery’s water source would likely be compromised.

The developer cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Shaughnessy spring would not be affected.

The public does not think it right to offer Lark, a private developer, access to our Summerland Water License, which we may need in future years.

To widen Latimer, the front yards of home owners there would have to be cut off.

Could portions of private property be legally confiscated to accommodate a private developer?

Would you like this done to your yard and quiet street?

Lark should look for another location.

If any of you is thinking of running for re-election, you’d better consider the level of anger in Summerland over the location of this project.

Any councillor who votes in favour of the Banks development in its present proposed location will not be re-elected.

Does the mayor really want to leave with a legacy of division and disgust?

Question: When are you going to come to a decision?

Marilyn Hansen

Summerland