'Death of Fort Langley' claims are a stretch
Editor: As one of the coffee purveyors mentioned in the letter by Brenda Alberts (The Times, Feb. 25), I too find the Wendel’s claim that the Coulter Berry building will destroy tourism to Supreme Court Justice Joel Groves puzzling.
While it’s nice for us in the coffee business to have visitors come to Fort Langley, we should not lose sight of the fact that the village is a place where people actually live and work. In that regard, the Coulter Berry proposal will fit in perfectly by including both places to live and work, as well as shops for residents and visitors alike.
Claiming the death of Fort Langley as a tourist destination because of another building with a third floor seems a really big stretch. This is especially true when the building has the most appealing heritage design and attention to detail ever proposed for our village.
In his ruling that the Township should have used the rezoning process to approve the Coulter Berry building, the Supreme Court justice also adds to the intrigue of the case.
In addition to Wendel’s, the justice refers to the other two individual petitioners on Mackie Street “whose properties are located in the Fort Langley Heritage Conservation area.” This is clearly an error as Mackie Street is well outside of the heritage conservation area.
Affidavits from the Mackie Street property owners claimed they were worried their property values would go down if the Coulter Berry building was built.
My goodness. Somebody better tell those folks snapping up the McBride Station townhomes at record prices. Don’t they realize they will be a mere stone’s throw from the alleged tourism killer of a building?
There is plenty of material for coffee shop talk.
Republica Coffee Roasters,