Editor, The News:
Re: Pitt Meadows, a fight over farmland (Sidewinder, April 21).
The citizens of our community deserve unbiased information from Sandy Macdougall to help them make informed decisions.
It is true that “Pitt Meadows has a lengthy history when it comes to preservation of farmland.” But the second sentence is incorrect – “increased property taxation has trumped the value of preserving agricultural capability for future generations in many instances.”
This can hardly be the case when total city revenues from major industry is a third that of farm revenue, and for light industry only 40 per cent greater than for farm activities.
Further, per the official community plan, 86 per cent of Pitt Meadows is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. In fact, a review of Pitt Meadows public record, decisions, and budget documents shows council has consistently supported agriculture and the recommendations of the Pitt Meadows Agriculture Advisory Committee, created in 2007.
At that time, the committee recommended removal of 13.2 hectares of the Cardiff Farms land from the ALR, which was subsequently approved by the Agricultural Land Commission.
Recent committee minutes show support continuing for exclusion of this land from the ALR for light industrial use.
As such, Pitt Meadows is one of the most desirable places to live in the Lower Mainland.
Council, over the years, has worked hard to maintain its unique, small-town and rural characteristics and preserves its heritage.
To the issues at hand, the land use change east of Harris Road, sandwiched between existing warehouses and residential developments, is still a proposal. A decision is not made, although the opinion piece would have the reader think otherwise.
In fact, in response to the developer’s proposal, council members are discussing the change in height of buildings. If there is a change, my understanding is that the 15 metres is an internal, not external height next to residential areas.
Further, there is no decision on setbacks. A staff report discusses a possible reduction by five metres, from 20 to 15 metres. In other words, from the property line to the edge of a parking lot would be 15 meters, if approved.
Between this 15-metre mark and the warehouse is an area substantially greater than the additional five metres, which means the distance between residential property and the proposed development is more than 20 metres.
A five-metre setback will be respected between warehouses property line and parkland boundaries, such as the Pitt Meadows Athletic Park.
In terms of comments made about upgrading Airport Way and Harris Road, these two roads are critical infrastructure for Pitt Meadows. Expansion is consistent with the OCP objectives of providing for increased transportation choice and efficiency.
It is council’s obligation to look for sustainable growth opportunities, including new business opportunities, enhancing movement of people and goods through our community, and protecting our environment and agriculture base. Council must also ensure sufficient tax revenue to pay for amenities we have come to expect.
I highly doubt Pitt Meadows residents would like their residential property tax rate to be between five to seven times higher than it is now.
This is what would need to happen if we begin to limit some new industrial development.
Bill Wild
Pitt Meadows