LETTER TO THE

E DITOR Townhouse proposal needed more work

To the editor: I cannot believe we are at the topic of new apartments again after the initial proposal of five possible 16-unit buildings to be constructed with a one-block buffer to separate the apartments from Sportsmen’s Addition. To sweeten that deal, Sportsmen’s Addition residents were told they might receive curb and gutter and a new paved road.

A few years later, a new proposal for two more apartment buildings was brought up. Against more opposition than approval at a meeting at city hall, the council approved two more 16-unit buildings. At that time, many people were upset, resulting in some even selling their homes and relocating to other towns — a major move to make because of the council’s decision.

It was also mentioned that no apartments would be built east of Fourth Avenue to interfere with the so-called buffer area between the original five apartments plus two more.

Administrator Dan Grady and councilman Mason Rachu said they would not be in favor of any apartment buildings east of Fourth Avenue. I took it that the majority of the council agreed, as they kept that buffer area zoned for homes and duplexes. Then Dan Grady decided to add in the term “townhouses.”

Now the proposed townhouses are nothing more than large four, five or six-unit apartment buildings in the socalled buffer area. This is going against everything promised by the council in the past.

According to the Tribune-Phonograph article, it is unclear how these apartment and townhouses will be sold or rented. The article said, and I quote, the “plan is to sell a mix of fourplexes with more floor space and five and six unit townhouses that are more likely to be rented out — the market will ultimately dictate how many of each type of unit he will build, the developer said,” end quote.

Sounds like to me and anyone who can read that it could end up being all apartments.

Now the question is: Are Dan Grady and Mason Rachu going to break their promise and is the rest of the council members, as a group, going to approve these apartments or stick with their original agreement to keep the transition buffer area?

At any rate, more conditions have to be set in stone about this proposal. It is very unclear what will end up here if approved.

Jim Colby

Abbotsford