• Site Inspection Report Page 1.

(Click on text for full size

picturepage 1 and next for page 2)

1. 

• Presentation To Council

Good evening Mayor Green and Council. My name is Sue Leyland and I live at 23386 20^th Avenue in South Langley, next to a fill site with up to four times the permitted depth. In 2002 the owner of 1890 232^nd filled without a permit. Neighbours complained and he received a stop work order. Bylaw 4578 says: Any soil deposited without a permit shall be removed from the land by the owner of the land at their cost. The fill was not removed. The property owner applied for a permit in June 03.

 

Engineering did not send neighbours a notice of intention to fill. There would have been strong opposition since the illegal fill material was of poor quality and excessive depth. The application said fill was needed to improve the soil for hay and grazing, but ample crops had been harvested from this field using only fertilizer. Because we did not get the notice, we were denied our right to input.

 

In July 2003 the Township issued a fill permit. I complained about the depth being deposited and Gord Swystun in engineering said the ALC had given the permit and the Township had no control over the fill. He and Engineering's Birk Madsen said the permit was a general guideline with no exact amount or depth. The fill grew higher than our fence, and they told me they didn’t see a problem. The fill site went near a creek and spilled onto neighbours land in places.  Clive Roberts in Engineering said we should be pleased at the good quality of the soil since it came from the Langley Airport expansion site.

 

The application said filling should take 2 weeks. The permit was renewed to Aug 04, Aug 05, Dec 06 and Dec 07, a total of 52 months, in spite of many complaints of overfilling. Bylaw 4578- states a permit may only be extended, with full compliance, to a total of 36 months. There was no compliance and the permit went 16 months beyond the period allowed.

 

Clive Roberts met with neighbours and promised the 3 to 4 foot depth would be reduced to .3 metre, but minimal action resulted. Letters of complaint to Mark Bakken, the council and Mayor Alberts were directed to Colin Wright in Engineering, who handed the case back to Clive Roberts.

 

In 2007 I applied through the Freedom of Information Act for all records pertaining to the fill site. The Township permit is very clear. It allowed 0.254 m or 10 inches of fill, as approved by email from the DFO and letter from ALC, which form part of the permit. Permit cross sections showed that the fill was to be spread evenly over the site and retain the original contours and swales, none of which have been done. Why hasn’t Engineering read their permit?

 

In Sept 2008, after many complaints to them and several inspections, the ALC, wrote to me that manpower had been supplied beyond normal practices to resolve the fill problem and suggested I should fill my now low corner. The DFO’s answer was to change the classification of my now low corner, and a large portion of a neighbour’s property, to seasonal wetland/floodplain.

At a February 11, 2009 meeting Gord Swystun, admitted in the presence of Alderman Fox that it was an oversight that no Notices of intention to fill had been sent to neighbours. He agreed that the average amount of fill deposited is more than the average amount proposed on the permit, but said that 100 or more loads could still be dumped. This meeting resulted in a minimal grading of the fill.

 

When Rick Green became mayor I approached him at an open house. He viewed the problem, was shocked and said the Township would make it right.  Later Mayor Green re-inspected the site and was very upset that Engineering had told him the repairs were complete, when no significant changes had occurred.

 

Alderman Charlie Fox has been working with neighbours to resolve this problem since July 2008.

 

The Township had test holes dug in June 09, mainly on the perimeter of the filled area, where the depth is minimal. Test hole #8 was .65m, close to triple the allowed depth. The only test hole less than .25m was the most westerly where filling was ordered to stop.

 

Colin Wright, General Manager of the Engineering Division has repeatedly told me, and others, that the Township cannot order the excessive fill removed. He claims it is just not possible, but gives no reason. Would engineering accept a planned rancher built as a four-story home?

 

The permit application says the owner will restore the land to a standard approved by the Township of Langley, or to such condition, and at such time and in such manner, as the Township of Langley may require. That seems to cover everything! And  Bylaw4578 makes it very clear that excessive fill must be removed by the landowner at his expense.

 

My 8-year battle to have this permit enforced seems unreal to most, but Mayor Green and Alderman Fox have witnessed most of these facts. My point is to demonstrate that Bylaw4578 appears to be adequate. The problem is that the Engineering Department staff have either not read, or do not understand the bylaw, or they choose to make their own rules and ignore the bylaw.

 

I ask council to enforce the permit at 1890-232^nd including all limitations of the ALC and DFO, and all measures proposed in the application.

 

When Bylaw 4578 is followed, landfill issues in Langley will diminish.

 

P.S. I have now discovered permits were issued up to Aug 08.

•  The motion to provide help.

Landfill Concerns

Moved by Councillor Richter, Seconded by Councillor Ferguson, Whereas significant concerns regarding Soil Deposit and Removal Bylaw 2007 No. 4578 and the overfilling of this property were raised by Sue Leyland in her delegation to Council on April 26, 2010; Therefore be it resolved that staff investigate the concerns around this bylaw and report back to Council on it as soon as possible.

REFERRAL

Moved by Councillor Richter, Seconded by Councillor Long, That this matter be referred to legal counsel for a report back to Council.

CARRIED

 

•  The Report Back To Council!

Re: Fill Deposited at 1892 - 232nd Street, Langley, BC (the "Fill Site")

We write on behalf of the Township regarding the concerns you have raised about the Fill Site. Township Council has considered the matter and we are instructed to advise you as follows:

 1.  The Township has never said that it did not have the authority to take action with respect to contraventions of the Soil Deposit Bylaw (Bylaw) or permits issued in respect of the Bylaw. However, the decision as to what, if any, enforcement actions the Township may choose to take with respect to contraventions of its bylaws, including the Bylaw, is at the sole discretion of the Township.

 2.  We have divided your concerns into three distinct issues which you believe amount to contraventions of the Bylaw and/or the permit issued in respect of the Fill Site; the height of the soil deposited, the volume of the soil deposited and drainage problems occurring on your property as a result of the soil deposit. We will address each concern separately.

(a)  With respect to the height or depth of the soil deposited on the Fill Site the Township will not be perusing the issue of fill deposited above .254 metres on the fill site.  Given the wording of the Bylaw, the permit and the application it is the Townships position that it is unlikely that the Township would be able to establish a contravention of either the Bylaw or the permit with respect to height on the facts of this case.

(b)  With respect to the issue of whether the volume of fill deposited on the Fill sit exceeded the amount set out in the permit it is inaccurate to say that the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) “determined” that 4500 cubic metres of soil were deposited on the Fill Site. The ALC, on the basis of their observations, were of the opinion that 4050 cubic metres was deposited. It is the Township's position that the ALC's opinion alone would be insufficient to establish a contravention of either the Bylaw or the permit with respect to the volume of fill deposited on the Fill Site. The Township will not be pursuing this issue further.

 (c)  Based on the available evidence the Township does not currently intend to further investigate your allegation that the deposit of soil on the Fill Site has negatively affected drainage on your property in contravention of the Bylaw and the permit

 While Township Council has decided not to take further action in respect of the issues that you have raised the Township is, however, prepared to work with you and to reconsider your previous application to place fill on the low lying portion of your property if you, and your consulting engineers, are able to overcome the drainage issues and DFO concerns associated with such works. Should you wish to discuss reactivating your fill deposit application please contact Roland Zwaag at the Township.

 Yours truly,

 Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP

 Brian Taylor

Copy to Township of Langley

Attn: R. Zwagg & M. Bakken

 

• What Is A Bylaw.

Municipal bylaws are public regulatory laws which apply in a certain area. The main difference between a bylaw and a law passed by a national/federal or regional/state body is that a bylaw is a made by a non-sovereign body, which derives its authority from another governing body, and can only be made on a limited range of matters. A local council or municipal government gets its power to pass laws through a law of the national or regional government which specifies what things the town or city may regulate through bylaws. It is therefore a form of delegated legislation.

 

Within its jurisdiction and specific to those areas mandated by the higher body, a municipal bylaw is no different than any other law of the land, and can be enforced with penalties, challenged in court and must comply with other laws of the land, such as the country's constitution. Municipal bylaws are often enforcable through the public justice system, and offenders can be charged with a criminal offence for breach of a bylaw. Common bylaws include vehicle parking and stopping regulations, animal control, building and construction, licensing, noise, zoning and business regulation, and management of public recreation areas.