Letter to the Editor - Vote yes for proper planning

Posted by on 22 October 2009 | 0 Comments

The Daily Townsman - October 22, 2009

Seeing as most everyone is having their say, I thought I would be remiss in not throwing in my two cents worth.
I was employed for 30 years by Inland Natural Gas/BC Gas and for the first 18 years I was directly involved with the installation of gas mains and services from 100 Mile House to the North Okanagan, both in municipal and rural communities. Part of my duties was working with the engineering and planning departments of the respective area as well as with engineering firms and developers involved in new developments. I was involved in the planning and sizing of gas facilities to serve the immediate and future gas consumersin these areas. For the next 10 years I was involved in Head Office with systems planning from Fort Nelson to Cranbrook. The office and field knowledge I gained showed me the benefit of proper planning and the added cost to the company and the communities when development wasn't planned or controlled. In many cases, it involved resizing, relaying or relocating pipelines, utilities and roads. All of which can be very expensive and disrupting.

I moved to Cranbrook in '92 and it didn't take very long to realize that there hadn't been too much coodinated planning of subdivisions or development services bylaws in the newer areas of city. It was also evident from the condition of most streets/avenues in Cranbrook that when they were constructed, a bare skiff of dirt was removed and a smattering of gravel layed before paving. This has resulted in the roller coaster rides and teeth shattering bumps our roads provide, which many of us claim as an embarrasment when showing visitors around town.

Also, on the southern slopes it is evident that developers paid little attention to coordinating street layout between subdivisions which has resulted in some streets being staggered and not tieing in. This problem can also be seen in developments within the Regional District planning areas.

From discussions with personnel in City Hall, I understand the $500,000 engineering study involves studying all available city records and plotting all the utilities by age, size material and location. When the study is finished, it will provide twofold information. First, giving engineering and council an idea of which utilities to priorize for budgetting purposes, i.e. replacement or upgrading . Secondly, the study will also show how best to tie in to existing utilities and any upgrading required to adequately service future expansion.

I also understand that the city has recently passed development construction bylaws which lay out the requirement for the installation of services and road construction to City standards. The bylaw also stipulates moneys that must be paid to the City and held until all municipal services: including roads, sidewalks, street lights, water and sewer services are completed to modern engineering standards. No less will be accepted.
Yes, the East Hill development is a large piece of property, however, whether we like it or not, it is going to be developed. The owners of the property have already left no doubt as to the future of the property. It will be subdivided into blocks and each block will either be developed as a whole or resubdivided into smaller blocks or acreages. In turn, these blocks will be developed into subdivisions.

The question then, is how do we want to see the area developed, by the Regional District as a rural area with little controlled development or as part of the City of Cranbrook with construction adhering to city standards and with street layout coordinated to an overall city plan.

If the former, you can be assured that at some time in the future, the residents of the area will want to come into the city and want city services. This will be extremely costly to both the wannabe's and the existing city taxpayers.

I am voting 'YES' to the East Hill boundary extension. I would rather see the area developed to a coordinated plan of streets and avenues and the developers required to pay for utilities and roads rather that have the costs fall back on the city taxpayers.

Don Ohs
Cranbrook