On a postcard-perfect street lined with cafés and shops, a boarded-up storefront is bound to attract attention. In historic Fort Langley, six of them have become the talk of the town.
Earlier this year, as the Township of Langley announced ambitious plans to develop several city-owned lots near the Fort Langley waterfront, developer Eric Woodward was in the process of withdrawing three development applications for projects along Glover Road, the village’s main street.
In February, he boarded up the buildings on the sites, stating he could not come to an agreement with Township planners over “onerous and ridiculous” development requirements. He has no intention to reapply and no long-term plans, he told Postmedia in a recent interview.
As spring sunshine brings crowds of tourists to Fort Langley after a the winter, the standoff between Woodward and the Township has many concerned.
On a Facebook page devoted to community issues, one resident called the boarded-up buildings a “black eye for the birthplace of B.C.”
The Fort Langley Business Improvement Association and the township council want the impasse resolved as warmer weather brings more tourists, but both admit there is no simple solution.
A large portion of Fort Langley is a designated heritage conservation area, one of about 60 in B.C. That means new development must “respond to the heritage theme,” according to the Fort Langley Community Plan.
Bylaws limit the height and size of new projects, and permits are required to alter or demolish heritage buildings.
But protecting the past can make it difficult to plot a course for the future.
“It is tough to balance,” said Township Coun. Charlie Fox. “When I make a decision, I have to look at the economics, the heritage piece and the residents themselves. It’s often give and take.”
Fort Langley is one of Langley’s most expensive — and richest — neighbourhoods, with residents reporting the highest incomes and highest education levels in the Township, according to a report presented to council in 2014.
In planning jargon, it’s a penturbia, a small town that lies beyond city suburbs. With a population of about 4,000 people, major growth is not expected in the future.
“It’s not an area with a lot of vacant or undeveloped land,” said Ramin Seifi, the township’s manager of engineering and community development.
Bedford Landing, the last large development in the area, was completed in 2011, when an old sawmill on the waterfront was subdivided, adding about 1,000 residents to the community.
“Fort Langley is a niche market,” said realtor Andy Schildhorn. “Demand is steady. People don’t tend to move away. They move in, raise their family and live in the community for 20 years or more.”
The Township's plans for the village involve building two museums, a library, a conference centre, a small Aboriginal-themed lodge, new homes and shops on a collection of lots near the waterfront. Some of the projects will be developed in partnership with the Kwantlen First Nation.
“It will be exciting to see it come together, probably not in this council’s time, but the next one,” said Township Mayor Jack Froese.
Other developments are also going ahead. In early March, concrete trucks lined Glover Road to begin work on Lily Terrace, “an exclusive collection of 24 modern residences,” starting at $1 million.
On a recent Saturday, as the scent of lavender soaps and waffle cones wafted from busy shops, several tourists said they assumed the six boarded-up buildings were also part of a new development.
If Eric Woodward had his way, they would be.
“We made an amazing proposal that other towns would beg for,” he said. “This is not my fault.”
The developer floated the idea of a boutique hotel for Fort Langley in 2015. After community consultation, he submitted a development application to transform seven lots at the corner of Glover Road and Mary Avenue into a mixed-use building that would include a 27-room hotel, 34 residences and commercial space.
According to a staff memo, council would need to approve several variances, or exceptions, to the zoning bylaw for the project to proceed, including height and lot coverage. Staff also required a lane, or an acceptable alternative, to provide better access for service vehicles and connectivity with adjacent sites.
The lane, which would cut through a courtyard proposed for the middle of the project, proved a sticking point, with Woodward against it and township planners adamant the developer needed to address issues related to “transportation, connectivity, servicing and access.”
Another proposal by Woodward — this one to redevelop seven lots near Glover Road and McBride Street to build nine townhouses, 17 apartment units, retail and restaurant space — also hit a speed bump.
Anticipating increased traffic from the project, township staff asked the developer how he planned to improve a badly aligned intersection at Glover and Mary Avenue. One suggestion involved building a new road, which would require relocating a heritage building. Woodward called it the “road to nowhere.”
In October, with both projects stalled, the developer had one of the buildings painted pink in protest. He later repainted it grey and, between November and January, withdrew the development applications for both projects, as well as a third application for a small building on Glover Road. In February, the plywood went up.
All six buildings are “beyond repair,” he said. “There’s nothing I can do about the fact that they’re 80 years old. We’re not going to make a huge investment to restore them, especially when I’ve made proposals to replace them.”
The situation has some residents lining up along familiar battle lines, first drawn when Woodward developed the Coulter Berry building, also on Glover Road, in 2013. A group of residents, upset council had allowed the three-storey building to proceed contrary to a bylaw restricting buildings to two storeys, sued the Township to stop the project. They were unsuccessful, and council’s decision to allow the building was validated by a court ruling.
While the current impasse is not solely about height — council has indicated it is willing to consider three-storey buildings in Fort Langley, including its own museum proposal — some still feel the character of the village is at stake.
“If you’re going to develop, you have to adhere to the guidelines,” said George Otty, who runs a Facebook page dedicated to “protecting Fort Langley’s small village.”
“What (Woodward) is proposing is so far over the line, it would dramatically change the village.”
The size of the proposed developments would create significant transportation and parking issues, agreed Schildhorn. “I support development, but this seems too much for our little village.”
He called the decision to board up six buildings “punitive to the community.”
Fort Langley Business Improvement Association president Gareth Abreo said his group tries to remain neutral on conflicts over private development, but the boarded-up buildings are not good for business, “especially when the real possibility exists of them remaining boarded-up for years to come.”
Woodward is a BIA director, and the association has asked him to consider “temporary beautification” of the plywood as a stopgap measure.
Fox said township council and staff are “very willing” to continue to work with Woodward and his professional team to find solutions.
The mayor was also optimistic the conflict could be resolved.
“It takes a lot to develop these older properties,” said Froese. “There are issues that need to be worked out, but I think we’ll get there.”
