Online Comments Summary

2003 Regional Growth Strategy Amendment | Online Comments

Name: Ken Showers Address: 3850 Happy Valley Rd. Victoria, BC V9C 3X5 Comments: Water drainage from Center Mountain, going in a Southerly direction toward and into Bilston Creek, is of high concern, not only for us at 3850 Happy valley Rd, but should be for the principals of this land swap plan. Because of a natural slope of the land, water runoff follows a natural area of water course through a low, well treed little "valley" which lies in a westerly direction adjacent to the western boundary of our property at 3850 Happy Valley Rd and neighbouring property at 3848 Happy Valley Rd. This area is quite wet, with water seeping from it, on to both properties, even during summer. This water originates partly from a swampy area located about 500 feet westerly from our property boundary. During moderate to heavy rains, this runoff becomes a heavy torrent, spilling on to ours and the neighbours property. This runoff eventually goes down our driveway and the neighbours property and into Bilston Creek. We have spoken to Mayor John Ranns, and walked him over this runoff area . He saw than no amount of expensive water run off management in the way of retention ponds would equal this natural water holding area, nor would they do much to fulfill the natural "soak up" provided by this treed area. We feel the best way to manage the run off of water in this part of the Center Mountain drainage area is to leave a natural, treed buffer area of about 350 Feet wide, running along the westerly boundary of our property , northerly from the Metchosin Greenspace to about where Centermont Lane intersects with Section 94 .

Name: Frank Mitchell Address: 530 Witty Beach Road Victoria BC V9V4H8 Comments:

I cannot understand how this change can be before the CRD Board before it has been discussed and agreed in public by Metchosin Council, let alone hearing views of Metchosin residents. (An open house is promised only for Oct 26.) It is also unclear whether this matter will be dealt with at the CRD HEARING on 19 October.
I would favour the proposed boundary change and associated elements in principle, as described in the press and Metchosin press releases. 3. But full approval depends upon knowing the details, including implications for changes legislation regarding land use, parks, etc. 4 I appreciate that there are “chicken and egg” problems between Treaty conclusion and enacting relevant legislation. This implies a proviso for simultaneous enactment of the relevant legislation and Treaty signature. So far, there has been no public notice of such arrangements. It would be a travesty if the legislation were enacted, and the First Nation decided that it wished to retain the right to the lots it has been offered, and Metchosin did not secure them them as parks as set out in the proposal.

Name: Kathy Atherton Address: 4995 La Bonne Rd. Victoria BC V9C 4C5 Comments: I would like to throw my support behind the requested amendments to the 2003 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and the 2016 RGS (which received 1st and 2nd readings in July 2016). The proposed land transfer between Langford and Metchosin that would re-designate 380 acres (154 ha) of land currently designated as Rural / Rural Residential Policy Area to Regional Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area (RUCSPA), would enable all parties to meet their interests. It would provide expansion room to Langford, give the Beecher Bay First Nation (Sc’ianew) an investment opportunity, and allow Metchosin to preserve valuable park land intact.

Name: Association for the Protection of Rural Metchosin Address: 3949 Olympic View Drive, Victoria, BC, V9C 4B1 Comments: The APRM is supportive of the agreement between Metchosin, Langford and the Beecher Bay FN as part of the treaty settlement for that FN. However our support for the change is dependent on successful conclusion of the treaty. To protect against a failure to complete the treaty, the APRM requests the CRD to make any extension of the Urban Containment Boundary to accommodate the proposed agreement conditional on formal completion of the treaty. To do otherwise is to risk the UCB extension proceeding to the benefit of the FN and Langford but to the detriment of Metchosin, as the provincial Crown lands (Lots 25,28 and 95 totalling some 250 acres ) which are intended to come to Metchosin as part of the treaty would revert to being on the table for discussion if the treaty was not signed Ken Farquharson, Vice President APRM.

Name: Nitya Harris Comments: If 380 acres are taken out of rural/residential policy area to be included into the RUCSPA than the RGS must make a way for 380 acres to be taken out of the RUCSPA elsewhere and included into the rural/residential policy area. This is important because the rural lands taken out serve an important duty of providing environmental services for clean air, clean water for humans and habitat for many species. It is therefore necessary that if we take out this much land out of service that we find the same amount of land elsewhere within RUCSPA to be put into the rural/residential area so that it can provide the same environmental services into the future. The other issue I have is that the 380 acres taken out serves as habitat and as travel corridors for many animals in the region. Before this amendment is finalized work needs to be done to identify what species will be disrupted from this land transfer and how this impact can be mitigated. Furthermore this land transfer will have a major impact on the Bilston and Metchosin Creeks watersheds and these impacts needs to be defined and rules and practices need to be put in place to minimize the impacts to these watersheds. Thank you.