POSTSCRIPT:  Mayor Braun reconsidered, and now I’m accepted, (sort-of):

Henry Braun

5:52 AM (17 hours ago)   Reply
to me, Bill, George, Darren, Nick

Good morning Gerda,


Thank you for your email clarifying  your request to appear as a delegation at the upcoming August 29th Abbotsford City Council meeting.


As you know, Public Hearings for land use proposals occur nearly every month at City Council meetings and the City has a legal requirement to accept applications by property owners (or their agents) regarding proposed changes in land uses on their property.  As such, it is Ms. Gill’s  legal right to bring forward the application to have the Land Use Contract removed from her property.  That said, it came to staff’s attention that during the application process, the mandatory Rezoning sign was not posted as required by Council’s Procedure Bylaw and as such the City of Abbotsford has canceled the last hearing for this application. The application will now go through a new Public Hearing process.


As you would like to address the “process” staff followed through this application, I have reconsidered your request to appear as a delegation at the August 29th Regular Council Meeting.  I will now approve your request on the provision that you refrain from comments regarding this application, which will need to be made during the pending Public Hearing process for the application as required by bylaw.


Thank you


Sent from my iPhone

Bill Flitton

7:05 AM (21 hours ago) Reply
to me, Katie

Good morning Gerda,


Please be advised that your delegation application was reviewed by the Mayor and City Manager and they have denied your request to appear as a delegation on Monday August 29, 2016 at the Regular Council meeting.


Please note that in regards to the issue of the process for discharging Land Use Contracts you will be able to address Council on this matter when you have an opportunity to address Council at the Public Hearing to be held on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00pm.


This is when Council will hear from the public specifically in regards to the Land Use Contract Discharge application for the property located at 2090 Oakridge Crescent, just a few properties away from yours at 2044 Oakridge Crescent.


Should you have any further questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me, or Katie Karn, Deputy City Clerk (Legislative Services), at 604-864-5607, or by email at






Bill Flitton

Director, Legislative Services/City Clerk

Tel: 604-864-5603, Fax: 604-853-1934

P Print only if necessary thanks!


Gerda Peachey <>

4:08 AM (1 minute ago) Reply
to hbraunGeorgeDarrenNick, Bill,



Hello Bill:

Would you please re-submit my application to be a delegate at the 7 PM Regular Council Meeting on August 29/16.

Mayor Braun and City Manager, George Murray could not have understood my application form.

My reason for being a delegate remains the same, but I will re-word it for their better understanding.

I am NOT asking to discuss the specific application of K. K. Gill to remove the Land Use Contract on 2090 Oakridge Crescent, followed by her plan to demolish the existing mobile home, replacing it with up to a three-story house, including a legal suite.

I want to be before council on August 29th, – BEFORE Ms. Gill’s proposal goes to a Pubic Hearing on Sept. 12/16 because I am challenging the entire route by which Ms. Gill’s proposal could move with such rapidity through your system, and receive your vote of approval, essentially behind the backs of an entire community.

IT IS THE FLAWED PROCESS THAT I WISH TO CHALLENGE ON AUGUST 29th.  If I can only challenge THE PROCESS, on the night of The Hearing my efforts will be totally futile, because you have shown beyond any doubt that you intend to grant this precedent-setting application.

To suggest I can do that at the Pubic Hearing is, at the very least disingenuous, and Mayor Braun and George Murray would know that, so I assume they simply did not grasp the content of my hastily, hand-written application.

Please date the re-newed application to last Friday.  I am aware this must be dated at least 10 days prior to council meeting.

There can be no reason to deny this:

I have not been a delegate on any subject for a long time, and last I knew all citizens have the right to appear before council 4 times a year, for ten minutes.

This is certainly NOT a FRIVOLOUS, INSIGNIFICANT, UNIMPORTANT matter, that will tie up ten minutes of Council’s precious time.

This is a challenge to your process/method of granting a massive, life-altering sweet gift to a land-use speculator, while essentially yanking the rug out from under 150 homes.

Removing the 44 year-old Land Use Contract to enable Ms. Gill’s plan to build a very large house, with suite IS THE PRECEDENT-SETTER.  That is what your staff have told me.

This is NOT a minor change to our community of mobile homes on our own lands.  In the REPORT attached to the Public Hearing that you DID set for July 25/16, a most shocking meeting, given that you gave this profound by-law amendment 1st and 2nd Reading on July 11/16, and granted Ms. Gill a Public Hearing at the first opportunity, your next scheduled Regular Council meeting two weeks later.

In your Final Draft, By-Law 2552-2016 Dated June 13/16:  “NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and the payment of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) of lawful money of Canada (Receipt of which is acknowledged by the City) the Parties agree each with each other as follows that…….[see attached photo for rest of text.]

Given that at the very minimum there had to be a sign on the front lawn for THREE WEEKS, prior to a public hearing, and there are only 14 days between 11 and 25, you give the impression of being in a very big hurry to grant such a profoundly-impacting change to one person, disregarding and by-passing the profound impact your decision will have on the hundreds of people who call this community home.

Yes, I know I am repeating the word ‘profound’.

Please note that now a sign is on 2090 Oakridge and it is obscured, not clearly visible. A van blocks the sign when the renter is home.  I do not attribute anything nefarious to the renter, but your web-site states the re-zoning sign must be clearly visible for 3 full weeks prior to a hearing.

So for ONE DOLLAR ($1.00).…….but for the last minute intervention of a man in our community, (a man who did not get your little card in his mail, but was alerted by a letter that I hastily wrote and dropped at doors), had this man not challenged you, you would already have voted to set this precedent for Ms. Gill, a speculator who bought that property in March of this year.

Nothing illegal in speculators trying to get local governments to make changes to land-use that will turn a fast buck for them, but I want to come as a delegate to argue that the PROCESS evident here is designed to keep the affected populace in the dark.

The PROCESS is almost totally devoid of transparency.

The PROCESS shows you as a Council making profound changes with no concept of the need to INFORM the affected populace.

The PROCESS offered no TIME for the affected residents to gather information, ask meaningful questions, consider whether or not the removal of a 44 year LUC would negatively or positively affect their lives.

BEFORE you grant a Public Hearing to ANYONE who wants to remove our 44 year LUC, please re-read your own AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY – – 2011.


“The strategy has five objectives:  1. Preserve existing affordable housing. …….3. Improve people’s ability to afford housing.”

You have a mandate from the Provincial Government to designate new zoning on lands currently covered by Land Use Contracts.  There is no moral imperative for you to rush at our CURRENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, on behalf of someone who can just walk in and pick up one of these properties like a piece of candy, and then on behalf of a speculator hastily remove our LUC, EIGHT YEARS, …….(8 years) before the Provincial deadline.

Bill, please present this to Mayor Braun, Council and staff.

I want to challenge the FLAWED, FAULTY, RUSHED, and perhaps even sneaky process utilized by Abbotsford City Hall, to make a profound change to our ability to retain affordable housing.

It is acknowledged by city staff and the BC Assessment Office, that removal of our LUC will likely see many large houses with suites replace the present mobile-only community.  Both city and assessment office staff acknowledge this will in all likelihood raise taxes considerably for all other properties, regardless of their desire to stay in the same humble homes as today.

The community knows 2024- 2022 or 2020 will see the LUC removed entirely here, but you the Mayor and Council should consider the need for TIME to prepare for that inevitable change.  You should slow down and respect the need for TIME to adjust financially.  Some folk will welcome the change and talk of selling for a higher price and getting out.

But many residents here have invested a lot of time and money and love into their properties, and are dismayed at the prospect of higher taxes, radially altered neighbourhood and unregulated illegal suites in the large houses that will replace mobile homes.

I have met some of those neighbours who are alarmed at the prospect of taxes rising to meet the assessed value of monster homes.  Some just barely make ends meet now.  We are generally not a high-roller community here.

Renting illegal suites from unscrupulous landlords is so pervasive in Abbotsford that is seems likely that will become the norm here.   Is that your idea of ‘Affordable Housing’?  Lose your home to higher taxes and rent a suite?

So to be perfectly clear, …… I am not speaking to the one application of K. K. Gill, the proposal you wished to approve last week.  This is a delegation to CHALLENGE THE CITY OF ABBOTSFORD’S FLAWED, UNFAIR, MURKY, NON-CONSULTIVE process of development applications and By-Law Amendments.

Thank you.  Gerda Peachey.  2044 Oakridge Crescent, Abbotsford,  BC  V2T 6A9