A public meeting was held in Warfield, Aug. 11, to address a proposal for a rezoning application
Mr. and Mrs. Larose presented a business plan for the property and their realtor, Mr. Alibone, spoke in support of their proposal.
The meeting was not held to quash a new business idea as presented in the Trail Times (“Council quashes new business idea,” Trail Times Sept. 8). It was not to criticize a business proposal or to approve or deny a business license. It was held to address a request to change a property in a residential area to a zoning that would allow commercial use.
With the number of already vacant commercial properties in this area must we look to rezoning residential property?
As reported in the Trail Times (“Residents voice opposition to converting vacant church,” Trail Times Aug. 13), of the 30 residents who chose to attend the public meeting bringing forward questions and concerns, those in attendance were not in favor of the change. In fact, no one at the meeting other Mr. and Mrs. Larose and their realtor spoke in favor of the proposed change.
Mr. Larose indicates in the Times of Sept. 8 “I think they got scared off by 20 people from a community of 1,400. And I don’t think that’s fair.” As only three people spoke in favor of this proposal, would it have been fair to disregard the number who spoke against it? Had council supported the application would it have been fair to say they had been “scared” into it by only three people “from a community of 1400”?
Warfield council did what they are supposed do.
They listened to both sides and made a decision based on the consensus of those they were elected to represent.
Gordon Trotter
Warfield