Proposed three-storey building too much for Fort Langley

It would be a letdown to see it dwarf all the other existing businesses and not to look a bit deeper for a design that pulls from our past.

Editor: There are two development projects proposed in Fort Langley at present.

McBride Station is a 4.5-acre residential development behind the fire hall. Lanstone Homes has gone to great effort in its proposal to blend into the neighbouring housing. It has taken detail features of  homes from the past, incorporating them into the design and giving fantastic continuation of our history. I look forward to seeing further development plans.

The second proposal is for a three-storey building that is of a size and design that has nothing in common with the existing street and pays respect to our heritage in name only. I am never quite sure why some people look at the village as if it needs all the economic components to make it whole.

Fort Langley is only one part of the the Township of Langley. There is Gloucester Estates for industry, a large shopping centre on the Bypass corridor and office space a-plenty on the west side of Walnut Grove.

What about Fort Langley? We are the cultural and recreational component. We offer a part of life that is missing in many communities. Having said that, the village is a one of a kind community in the Lower Mainland. Our design features should come from what little we have of our history, and not from other trend-setting developments.

The Township did not arbitrarily bring in the height restriction. This was accomplished after years of studies, starting in the mid-1980s and culminating in 1992. The height restriction was enacted with thorough discussion.

Sewer was coming to the commercial core and the concern by council, residents and commercial owners was the potential to overbuild  with three storeys. It was excellent foresight by those with vision in keeping with our lifestyle.

Yes, we do have two three-storey commercial buildings. They were built just before the height restriction came into effect.

Do we want more three-storey buildings in the village commercial core, overshadowing our community hall? I appreciate property owner Eric Woodward’s efforts to date with the mall and the west side of Glover Road. However, this new proposal does not match the existing landscape of Glover Road.

The building has no relationship with our past and is not in keeping with the design guidelines laid out in the Official Community plan. This is an important location and I look forward to seeing a new building there.

However, it would be a letdown to see it dwarf all the other existing businesses and not to look a bit deeper for a design that pulls from our past.

Andy Schildhorn,