Bullying by members of the ‘Unelection’ group

Property owner takes issue with attacks on his request for setbacks to build a single-family home in Brookswood.

Editor: If members of the unelected “Unelection Campaign” group are willing to misinform the public about a simple variance application, then how can anyone take them seriously on anything else?

Looking for issues and attention, some members of the “Unelection Campaign” group, the anti-progress group which hopes to unseat some incumbents with other candidates in the  Township November election, decided to oppose a basic setback variance application at the Sept. 8 council meeting.

Even though after months of study, staff had recommended approval, this group decided to use bullying tactics and came with frivolous and baseless objections.

The application requested  variance to allow building of a new home on the corner of the property so that if future development comes, the house wouldn’t have to be torn down. The difference is 2.25 metres from the front and 1.5 metres from the side.

The setbacks would bring the house in line with the subdivision across the street, which contains quarter acre lots with 7.5 metres (25 foot) front and 1.5 metre (five foot) side setbacks. Since this was not an application to develop nor change zones, it would easily fit in the current OCP designation of 7,000 square foot lots. The lowest density a new OCP could bring to this residential area is quarter acre lots.

Some members of the Unelection Campaign went on the Leave Brookswood Alone Facebook page, where opinions become facts which lead to the wrong conclusions. One defiantly declared “….nobody asked us to be part of any planning….That is a mistake….Those sneaky buggers.”

One of their principals, Anna R. (who refuses to give her last name) threatens “Apparently Nirmal Kooner did not hear us well … he was for the new OCP.” She is trying to rile her followers.

I believe it was Patrick Henry who said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.”

She either doesn’t care or doesn’t understand this concept. Does this unelected, uninformed group naively think that we should get their permission before doing business with the Township? Do they think intimidation is the answer to everything?

One speaker from across the street didn’t realize she was opposing the same setbacks she had on her own property, until told by staff. The rest of the speakers didn’t even live in the area. Their properties wouldn’t be affected.

Don Quixote would have been proud of them.

It was not a public hearing. Traditionally, only neighbours are supposed to air their views if their property is adversely affected. Another spoke at length about not being able to park trucks in the driveway. I don’t know if she drives a semi, but if you can’t park your vehicle on a 25-foot driveway, then most of Langley will be in trouble.

In their world, even a single home is “high density,” and the person building it is a “corrupt developer.”

I sincerely urge their followers to do their own research. Everything on Facebook is not true. I would have been happy to discuss their concerns over a cup of coffee, but that wouldn’t suit their “shoot first, ask questions later” style.

I will still build my home. It just won’t be an efficient use of land. Hmmm, I wonder if I have to ask them what colour I can use? By the way, I have to cut a couple of dying trees for safety reasons, so don’t go crazy.

Nirmal Kooner,


Editor’s note — Langley Township council turned down the variance application.



Langley Times