Keeps moving the goalposts
Dear Editor: There were some new Summerland recently.
They were generally younger adults handing out flyers with information on the proposed iCasa development of Banks Crescent.
Some were going door-to-door, businessto-business, clipboard in hand. Some were wearing St. Elizabeth badges, yet were not hired by St. Elizabeth.
They were handing out material that at best is misleading and in parts, simply not true. Lark’s previous advertising material was declared to be “misleading and unsupported” by the Canadian Ad Standards Council.
It’s unclear if the developer is providing the district with infrastructure that will safeguard the hatchery’s water supply as they claim, or if they plan on donating $600,000 to the district towards a possible secondary water source.
Their information is based on a one-day water sampling result with no other details.
Who will build a water treatment plant? Where is it being built? Are there plans on paper? How will water be purified of contaminates without using chlorine? How will it be heated in winter or cool it in summer? Who will pay for and be responsible for its maintenance?
In a 1996 letter from the District of Summerland to the hatchery, council agreed that the land above the Shaughnessy Spring was an “environmentally sensitive zone” and reclassified it as agricultural to further protect the area from future residential development.
The number of units continues to increase from 340 to 380, 390, to 404. These units were marketed as state-of-the-art, age-in-place senior living yet it is now open to all ages. Which is it: senior’s village or condos for all ages?
According to Lark’s latest traffic ‘analysis,’ there will actually be 424 units. Yet Lark claim traffic will actually decrease by 30 per cent.
How can this be? Are they playing down the number because they forgot to factor in the millions of dollars needed for upgrading of Solly Road or Latimer Avenue? Will Summerland citizens be on the hook for these costs?
Lark is avoiding building in red-zoned high hazard areas but only by a minimal amount and there is no guarantee that the clay cliffs or the aquifer won’t be disturbed either during construction or afterwards as a result of construction.
If the development footprint is just outside the red zone, does that not raise the question if any of it is in orange zone?
So many questions and so few real answers. faces in Donna Wahl Summerland