The LLJCA representatives at this hearing made it clear that the association's mandate is to ensure the protection of our lake environment. They presented evidence to support a recommendation to defer Application No. BA 24 until the issues raised in the submissions are resolved.
Ronaye Elliott, our TNRD Area J Representative, followed the presentations with a comment that the developer "has done more than required to communicate with LLJ residents by making presentations at the last three AGMs". Another director criticized the LLJCA for not responding to the development plans sooner. The motion for removal of the convenant passed unanimously, with perhaps a couple of abstentions.
Despite the outcome of the vote by regional district directors, there will continue to be opportunities for LLJCA to offer expertise to the developers, and for ongoing discussions to ensure environmental concerns are addressed.
You can browse blog posts related to the Lakeshore Development by selecting the 'development' label.
 |
| photo by Jenny Perry |
6 comments:
What a shame that TNRD did not approach this with a more open mind. I wonder what 3 AGMs Greg spoke at? Were we not told by the previous REWUS executive that Greg's presentations were nothing to do with formal REWUS meetings? Thank you to all who attended TNRD on the behalf of our lake.
There are some notes forthcoming from Howie Mattfeld from his presentation to the TNRD that are focused on the flaws in the process. I'll get those posted asap.
It does seem from Elliot's comment that there is a tendency by TNRD to assume that Gregg's good efforts to keep the community informed are part of their processes. But I'm only picking up what I can and trying to make sense of what I read - was unable to attend the hearing because of work, and although I'm a 2-minute paddle from the Little Lake, it's apparently too far away to be part of TNRD's distribution list. ;-)
Bev, what does REWUS stand for?
Ridgemont estates water users society?
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for helping to fill in the blanks!
I'd hate to be the one to sign off on this development and have one of the new houses catch fire and burn down the whole existing community. Everyone should point their fingers at the person who allowed this to happen if it ever does.
According to a legal search, the developer would be in breach of covenant if they were to pursue any future development. Does changing the name of the developer allow them to get away with this?
Post a Comment