Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment

As a frequent visitor to the Lake Errock , it shocks me to imagine that such a project can even be considered, given the small size of the community and the fragile characteristics of the sorrounding ecosystem. This massive population influx would seriously jeopardize not only the natural resources and biodiversity, but would also mean a severe infrastructural impact, turning a rural and conscientious community into an urban scenario with all the environmental impacts involved. I strongly urge our community representatives to reconsider their stance on this OCP as it does not align with FVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy or what the residents have in mind for the future of our community.

As a frequent visitor to the Lake Errock , it shocks me to imagine that such a project can even be considered, given the small size of the community and the fragile characteristics of the sorrounding ecosystem. This massive population influx would seriously jeopardize not only the natural resources and biodiversity, but would also mean a severe infrastructural impact, turning a rural and conscientious community into an urban scenario with all the environmental impacts involved. I strongly urge our community representatives to reconsider their stance on this OCP as it does not align with FVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy or what the residents have in mind for the future of our community.

I was born in Mission and have lived in the area all my life. I have been a resident of Lake Erroch aka Squakum Lake lake since 2017. The gravel pit is MAN-made natural disaster. Let's fix it! Area C and First Nations can buy it with partners from the Provincial and Federal Government with the goal of creating a "re-wilding" project plan for the land. They use this project as a model template on how to repair, maintain and steward land after the devastation from gravel pit mining on the ecosystem and local communities. Given the location of the lake it was a huge mistake to develop this parcel of land into a gravel pit in the first place. We can take on the responsibility of repairing the damage while creating an educational environmental legacy for years to come that teaches the future generations how to transform our devastated ecosystems back into healthy thriving environments.

Those of us who live at Lake Errock choose to do so as it is a lovely quiet rural community however the proposed OCP shatters that ideal by suggesting an influx of 485 dwelling units. Our community is not designed to accommodate this influx and as such I strongly oppose the OCP which has been suggested. I believe it would be a much better fit if the gravel pit could be returned to a more natural state, perhaps a park and trails could be created for residents and nearby communities to access, so that we can all enjoy the beautiful environment which we are so fortunate to have in our backyard. Given the small size of Lake Errock our ecosystem is fragile and there is significant, and justified, worry that this massive population influx would seriously jeopardize it. I also worry about the infrastructure, which would need significant upgrades, to support an increase of such magnitude. I strongly urge our community representatives to reconsider their stance on this OCP as it does not align with FVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy or what the residents have in mind for the future of our community.

Floating on the water watching Eagles in flight - Lake Errock is such a beautiful site.
A peaceful paradise to be alone – Shared with wildlife that call it home.
Soon you will take that away – building a metropolis for the money today.
A community filled with responsible properties – to be overtaken by multi-dwelling monstrosities.
Lake Errock is a nature's delight – Now you want it? Not without a fight!

As a Lake Errock resident, I am deeply concerned about - and strongly oppose - the gravel pit redevelopment plan. The plan is not aligned with the needs of the existing residents of the area or the FVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy. The plan poses significant risks to the area such as environmental pollution (including damage to Lake Errock itself), noise pollution from the proposed water treatment plant, safety hazards from increased pedestrians and traffic, and strain on emergency and other services. Also concerning is the lack of community engagement and transparency, and the conflict of interest related to the research performed by private consultants hired by the developer. In sum, the plan does not adequately consider social and environmental factors, provides no benefit to the existing community and its residents, and is detrimental to Area C. I implore FVRD to seriously consider the irreversible damage a redevelopment of this magnitude will do to the Lake Errock area.

As a Lake Errock area resident, I find it shocking that a development of this scale and ill planning could ever be considered to be compatible with the OCP or with any OCP of a similar rural area. We are in a sensitive environmental area that provides significant wildlife habitat and is a boundary to relatively pristine forest and mountain habitat. The expenditure for proper infrastructure and environmental mitigation to facilitate a project on this scale, (located in Area C considering existing infrastructure) would be truly astronomical and would render a project like this unfeasible - which is perhaps why the proposal makes little sense to residents of the area. Please reject this proposal in current form and conduct proper public consultation to develop an OCP that will truly respect the residents of this community, and the environment within area C and beyond.

As a resident of the area, it is a shame that the FVRD has not yet stopped this development. Residents are strongly opposing the plan, which has not been properly communicated or discussed with the community, and leaves us wondering how issues such as increased traffic, garbage collection, emergency services and the overall impact on the ecosystem will be. Research being done by private consultants hired by the development company do not take any of those issues into account, and should not be considered as they're being paid to show results that benefit solely the developer's point of view. The document below outlines the very many concerns the population of the area has with this development, please read it thoroughly and take it into consideration before moving forward with yet another housing complex.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iFzfvhKpPIb44b193T7UrR-cLo-4CfE-/view

To whom it may concern,
As an Area C resident I continue to strongly oppose the Gravel Pit Redevelopment plan. The updated OCP does not reflect the community feedback that was provided in the OCP planning stages, nor does it put forward a plan that benefits the local community or future residents with the proposed development. The proposal goes against the FVRD future planning strategies, and has numerous environmental concerns as well as lack of emergency and community resources and transit options for a population increase of that magnitude. These concerns, and more, are included in the attached document provided. This proposed development does not fit in Area C, and we strongly oppose the application

My 5 year old son, Bear, asked that I email his beautiful art and letter expressing his deep, heartfelt opposition to the gravel pit development. (Also submitting his message here) We have lived full time in the Lake Errock community since summer of 2021. Bear loves his community and loves the earth, and would do anything to prevent the gravel pit development and the devastating impacts it will have on the environment around us. There are two drawings, one from last year and one from this year, showing that it has been a consistent worry of his since we heard about the development plans. There is also a letter in his own words, hopeful that more trees can be planted, and animal habitat can be restored.

Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment Community Feedback
May 10, 2024
The following document is in regards to the application by GWEB Holdings Ltd. redevelopment
proposal.
GWEB Holdings Ltd has made an application to re-develop the existing gravel pit located at
43837 & 43873 Lougheed Highway (PIDs 013-445-871, 012-051-853, 012-051-888, 012-051-
900, 013-445-901) into a residential subdivision with approximately 485 dwelling units.
The current proposed subdivision includes:
144 single-family residential lots with secondary suites (288 Dwelling Units)
97 townhouse units (97 Dwelling Units)
67 Apartment residential units (67 Dwelling Units)
11 3-unit Multiplexes (33 Dwelling Units)
“Your redevelopment concept is defined as a Major OCP Amendment under the Fraser Valley
Regional District Development Application Fees Establishment Bylaw No. 1560, 2019 as it
constitutes the following:
• The creation of 100 or more dwelling units;
• Results in an increase in population of 250 or more persons, based on an average
household size of 2.5 persons per household”
FVRD Pre application letter.pdf (285 KB) (pdf)
As a full time resident of Lake Errock, I am deeply concerned about the revised OCP, the Gravel
Pit Redevelopment proposal and the FVRD’s perceived support of it. The April updated OCP is
reactionary to the proposal and puts the development as the only focus for the area, with no
other planning considered.
The OCP has a disclaimer that most of the document was provided by the developers
themselves. The OCP was also created by a Third Party consultant (with advisory from FVRD
Planners). As a FVRD rural electoral area tax paying resident I am incredibly alarmed that the
FVRD has decided to let a developer lead the visioning for Area C, and outsourcing the planning
of the area and multiple surveys that go with the application to consultants paid for by GWEB
Holdings Ltd to accommodate the developer’s application preference and timeline.
There have been no studies or surveys providing sufficient evidence warranting a change in the
OCP such as what has happened in the revised edition, outside of the influence of the proposed
development, and the FVRD reaction to it. It is disturbing that the OCP was created in part by a
Third Party consultant funded by GWEB Holdings, in a need to revise the OCP in order to move
their application forward. The updated OCP goes against everything the community had
previously identified and communicated clearly to FVRD Planners as values and vision for the
area.
In the Corporate Report provided to the Electoral Area Services Committee in 2022 it was
stated: “The Official Community Plan (OCP) does not support this proposal. The OCP designation
for the majority of the lands is Limited Use which supports low density development on 8
hectare parcels. LIMITED USE areas may also be reduced and re-designated if future studies
show that an area can safely accommodate a broader range of uses without environmental
damage, unacceptable public risk or excessive public expenditure on access or other public
works.”
This has in no way been accomplished.
It is unacceptable that given that statement, and ongoing clear concern expressed by rural
electoral area residents for this development, this proposal is continuing forward and with such
perceived support by FVRD staff and Board members.
GWEB Holdings Inc chose to ignore the FVRD who advised: “In the opinion of FVRD Planning &
Development staff, development of this scope and scale should be preceded by a neighbourhood
plan that engages the community and other stakeholders in the creation of a comprehensive
land use and servicing plan that balances social, environmental and economical factors.”
This was not done, and the effect of that is already observed by Area C residents, who are
rightfully upset with this government leadership.
There is an obvious lack of interest in community feedback experienced in the poorly planned
revisions to our OCP, all of which support the proposed development. None of the ‘community
benefits’ listed in the OCP have been requested by the community and do not serve the current
or future residents of the area.
GWEB Holdings Inc’s plans for Lake Errock in no way reflect the vision of the community to
maintain the rural environment that brought homeowners into this electoral district. Based on
the detailed feedback provided from the past OCP planning sessions and surveys the
community completed in 2023, the current OCP does not support the statement from the Area
C OCP Survey Response Summary that were presented in January 2023 that states “this input
will help to direct our next engagements and the development of the Official Community Plan.”
(link)
Comparing the OCP for Lake Errock to our neighbours in Harrison Mills, which is a detailed
environmentally progressive document, the OCP for Lake Errock is respectfully embarrassing to
residents, and ill thought out. As a resident, I find it quite alarming that the Municipal Planners
are presenting this proposal, given the serious concerns, dangers, and problems brought
forward for the current and future residents of the area.
With a desire to be an informed citizen, and in the spirit of collaboration between current
residents and municipality for what would best service the area, community, and to foster the
larger RGS for the region, I have reviewed the presented documents in the OCP and developer
updates.
I greatly oppose the Gravel Pit Redevelopment plan presented by GWEB Holdings Ltd. It
continues to be in significant misalignment with the RGS of the FVRD and the substantial
changes and scope made from the original proposal to now (which also continues to grow in
scope) brings serious concerns for the current and future residents of Area C. Below is an
outline of why the FVRD Board should not approve the application to redevelop the Gravel Pit.
UNREPRESENTATIVE OCP PLAN
The updated OCP plan presented in April outlines the Gravel Pit Redevelopment proposed by
GWEB Holdings Ltd as the only future planning for Area C. As a resident who wants to
contribute and benefit from a thriving community with shared vision for growth for it’s
members and habitat, is not only a shocking, but incredibly disappointing document. There is
nothing captured in the updated OCP that reflects the comments and vision provided by the
community Survey Response Summary.
The plans outlined in the OCP for unsupported population growth of this magnitude in the
immediate area, the unsafe highway crossings, the unnecessary and concerning waste system,
and half hazard ‘trail systems’ that are walkways along roadways are not aligned with the RGS,
and do not benefit the Area C community. It is disheartening to see the OCP primarily just
documents provided by GWEB Holdings Ltd, with no alternative plans presented by FVRD
planners for what is best for the current local community, or responses to feedback provided in
the past survey. There are numerous reasons why the proposed development should not go
through, but the most alarming are the following:
MAJOR CONCERNS:
Dangerous pedestrian crossing of Highway 7 and train tracks
- Traffic speeds on this stretch are notoriously 10-20KM above the listed 80KM speed
limit.
- The location is around a bend, not giving adequate lead time for drivers to be
alerted of crossing pedestrians.
- Drivers do not always pay attention, and certainly are not expecting a pedestrian
crossing on a highway, causing accidents.
- Many drivers on that highway are not local, so they would not be expecting a
pedestrian crossing.
- High traffic area, especially in summer months with additional biker and tourism
traffic.
- Not adequate lighting along the highway for evening crossings.
- There is not available space to safely add a walkway along this area, without
environmental impact of blasting rock near train crossing.
- There has been documented increase in traffic volume in the FVRD, which increase
the probability of vehicle accidents.
- Multiple major vehicle accidents have happened in this area, including a fatal crash,
cited in these two separate accident news articles:
https://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/drivebc-highway-7-closed-again-followingcrash-
near-deroche-bridge-2662962
https://www.missioncityrecord.com/news/update-victim-of-fatal-crash-in-derocheidentified-
2105366
- The trains do not slow down in the area, increasing the chance of harm. There has
also been death contributed to the train in the area, cited in this news article:
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/one-dead-after-thanksgiving-plan-turns-tragic-1.442854
- A pedestrian highway crossing has never been a request of the community, so
should not be considered a community benefit presented by the developer to
support their building application. This should not be included in the OCP or a
consideration to approve their application.
Waste Treatment Plant / Noise & Light Pollution From Development
- There are no studies showing that the current individual septic systems are causing
any negative environment impact.
- Developers documents listed current septic system as only having ‘potential’ future
negative impact to the local environment.
- Local community are invested in protecting their environment and are excellent
stewards of the lake and local surroundings.
- Septic tanks in the area are needing to be of the highest standard to be used, so
there is already significant review of this system in place.
- Current Area C Residents will not have access to the waste treatment until Phase 3.
- Current Area C Residents will have increased taxes and costs associated with the
new waste system, many for who have just spent thousands of dollars on the
municipal approved septic tanks for their property.
- Outlined costs to residents to be integrated into the system will be approx $10,000
initial cost, and upwards of $700/year to use the system, which is not affordable to
most residents of the area who live on a fixed limited income.
- Proposed new waste treatment will have noise levels of much higher volumes than
currently.
- Developer has noted that the noise levels will be similar to the train, however have
not noted the decibel levels of when the train is not traveling through the area to
compare to.
- When train is not running (the majority of the time) the area is quiet, serene, and
one can enjoy the sounds of nature – this in danger, should the new waste centre
move forward in it’s current proposed location.
- A major point of feedback from the OCP planning survey by residents was the high
value attributed to having a peaceful, quiet are free of noise and light pollution
- The addition of the development will add noise and light pollution, which is a major
concern.
- A waste treatment plant never been a high request of the community, so should not
be considered a community benefit presented by the developer to support their
building application.
Lack of Appropriate Proposed Trail Systems
- A medium point of feedback from the OCP planning survey captured the desire for
trail networks, such as a trail connecting the north and south sides of Lake Errock.
- A much higher point of feedback from the OCP planning survey was the desire to
reduce human impact on park & greenspaces, which the development proposal
directly conflicts in multiple ways.
- The previous OCP outlined the desire for more trail networks and parks, however
the proposed Gravel Pit Development plan has the majority of their trail accounted
for in walkways alongside the highway or residential streets, with train crossings.
These are not considered trail networks and should not be counted in the measuring
of trails for the area.
- A ‘trail network’ crossing Highway 7 has never been a request of the community, so
should not be considered a community benefit presented by the developer to
support their building application and these sidewalks should not be included in the
measurement of trails added to the area. This is a dangerous plan and should not be
included in the OCP or a consideration to approve their application.
Current Limitations of Services
- The rural level of services available to Area C residents are already at capacity and
cannot accommodate a population increase
- This is a rural area with garbage/recycling/compost being the responsibility of
residents to dispose of at the waste transfer station
- The waste transfer station is currently at capacity with bins regularly full, and does
not allow for organic recycling year round as bins are removed due to budget limits
- This is a rural area with no postal service outside of PO boxes
- This is a rural area with extremely limited access to transit service
- This is a rural area with extremely limited access to essentials (groceries, gas, etc)
- This is a rural area with limited schooling available
- This is a rural area with Emil Anderson Group contracted to manage road services
and maintenance, who are incredibly inactive and unresponsive
- During snowfall, Lake Errock does not receive plowing, and in 2024 residents were
supported by the First Nations communities instead to clear road access in the area
- Emil Anderson Group does not do the routine maintenance in the area they are
contracted to do, resulting in environmental impacts like the one cited in this recent
news article:
https://globalnews.ca/video/10261835/culvert-maintenance-blamed-for-lake-errock-flood
Emergency Management
There is no documentation that the Emergency Management Executive Committee (EMEC) has
reviewed the proposal and updated the EMP to reflect the hazards of not only the new
structures on floodplain and unstable land but the emergency plans and services needed to
support an approximate 200% population increase in the immediate area.
- Currently a minimum of 30 minute response time for any emergency service.
- Proposed Fire Hall as part of the latest development plan but there is no indication
that this will this be staffed 24hrs.
PROPOSAL MISALIGNMENT WITH RGS
The following statements are from the Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment – FVRD Electoral
Area Planning Preliminary Referral presented by Robin Beukens.
“Aspects of the proposed development are inconsistent with the RGS. While there is no
specific threshold at this time for developments being too large or dense for the rural electoral
areas, a series of developments of this scale would lead to more growth in these areas than
envisioned in the 2004 RGS and the Draft RGS. These types of developments are generally
intended to be located within the urban growth boundaries of member municipalities to
ensure larger populations have a diversity of transportation choices, are close to many
different amenities, and to provide learning and economic opportunities near by. The rural
character of the electoral areas also has the potential to be impacted by large, dense residential
developments.
The rural character and way of life is why many people live in the electoral areas, and
maintaining this is important for existing residents’ lifestyles; for protecting agricultural
lands, natural resources, and natural areas; and for supporting the rural economy.
o As part of the RGS public engagement process, there was clear concern expressed by
rural electoral area residents about the importance of maintaining the rural way of life. (link)”
Having reviewed the RGS alongside the revised OCP, I do not see how the FVRD Board can
support the approval of this development in this rural location.
Beyond the dissatisfaction with the updated OCP, the proposal also strongly goes against some
of the major goals and drivers of the broader RGS for the FVRD in numerous areas. Many of
these were outlined in the Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment – FVRD Electoral Area
Planning Preliminary Referral as concerns, and they have not be addressed. Below are
statements pulled from the RGS, and how the current proposal does not reflect the vision and
goals for the area, based on the RGS.
Sustainability Planning with RGS – Lack of Transit/Emergency Services
Below are statements from the RGS with regards to future planning, development, and
environmental impact. Based on the goals and direction outlined in the RGS, I do not see how
the FVRD can approve the proposed development plans for the Lake Errock Gravel Pit
Redevelopment given this vision for the area.
The imperative to curb greenhouse gas emissions, reduce our footprint and build
resiliency is another lens through which the we will consider the issues before us.
Support official community plans and zoning bylaws that integrate land uses with
transit service and active transportation routes, and encourage infill, redevelopment,
densification, and mixed-use as a means of creating more compact development patterns and
housing affordability, particularly around downtown cores and neighbourhood centres. – RGS
Focus urban development within established Regional Growth Boundaries, around
existing downtown cores and transit hubs. - RGS
Support development practices and land use policy that minimizes the use of cars and
encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit within and between communities, including
Indigenous communities on-reserves. – RGS
Consider Transportation Demand Management, reducing parking requirements where
appropriate, and other strategies that encourage the development of a multi-modal
transportation system and reduce long-term impact to air quality. – RGS
Environmental Impact of Lack of Transit Systems
There are currently no accessible transit options from Area C to any of the surrounding hubs.
Currently it is a 2.5hr transit commute during working hours only from Lake Errock to Mission
or Abbotsford via transit, or at least a 30 minute drive. There are no transit options during the
evening or weekends. This rural location affects access to emergency services, as the fastest
response time for any fire, police, ambulance is no less than 30 minutes. As of the 2021 census,
the current population of Area C is approximately 340. The proposed development will more
than double that number. There are not transit or emergency services available for this
demand.
Goal: To develop an integrated, safe, and efficient transportation system for people and
goods that promotes transit, walking, and cycling, and minimizes the transportation system’s
impact on air quality. – RGS
Goal: To provide efficient, sustainable, and cost effective services that contribute to
compact and sustainable growth. – RGS
The majority of the region’s highways are experiencing significant increases to traffic
volume. High traffic can lead to reduced safety on roads and highways. - RGS Monitoring
Report
The RGS outlines minimizing the use of cars, but this will not be possible for a development of
this size in a rural area with no services within a 30 minute drive. The target demographic for
this development, based on documents available, is intended for retirees and empty nesters,
which the FVRD needs to consider additional health implications for. A development of this size
and scope would best be suited closer to available services that currently exist.
Sustainability Planning with RGS – Limited Expansion
Below are statements from the RGS with regards to the value of concentrated growth and
maintaining rural areas and communities. The proposed development is not self-sufficient and
too far removed from a major hub to not incur significant municipal infrastructures to be built,
improved or updated to support it. Based on the goals and direction outlined in the RGS, I do
not see how the FVRD can approve the proposed development plans for the Lake Errock Gravel
Pit Redevelopment given this vision for how communities should be planned.
Support development patterns that minimize development costs, life cycle costs, and
risks associated with flood, geotechnical, and environmental constraints. - RGS
Building more compact communities is one of the most effective ways to reduce
infrastructure costs. Compact development minimizes the need for new and expanded systems
and reduces maintenance costs over the long-term. - RGS
Maintain the character of rural communities in electoral areas
a. Concentrate growth within existing rural communities, and encourage compact,
energy efficient development that minimizes infrastructure and development costs, and is
financially self-sufficient.
b. Recognize the regional role of rural areas and communities in attracting and
supporting tourism, providing recreation and natural resources, and encourage regional
cooperation and support to ensure rural areas, often with limited resources, can continue to
provide these services.
c. Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible and minimize conflict where residential
areas, including reserves, border natural resources operations on public, private, and Crown
lands.
d. Limit development in areas with flood, geotechnical, and environmental hazards to
minimize any risk to public safety. – RGS
Ensure that land use, transportation, and other planning decisions at the regional level consider
public health impacts - RGS
Environmental Impact
Below are statements from the RGS with regards to stewarding the land and protecting natural
habitats and environments. The Gravel Pit currently has documented that significant
environmental impact has already happened, with a fish bearing water system currently
compromised, and a history of negatively impacting the lake habitat, yet they are still fully
operational. Continued negative environmental impact is inevitable. The developers are also
using this environmental damage to benefit their own application, with the intention to
increase the scope of the development in the repair of the bank.
“The south bank of Watercourse B has become compromised. A Water Sustainability Act
Section 11 approval application is being prepared to reinforce the unstable section of the bank,
and ensure flows remain within the fish bearing Watercourse B and prevent future blow-outs
through the bank that have resulted in water running onto the ground and not contributing to
the downstream fish habitat. This bank stabilization will potentially allow for an increased
developable area. “ GWED Holdings Ltd.
Based on the goals and direction outlined in the RGS, I do not see how the FVRD can approve
the proposed development plans for the Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment given this vision
for respecting and stewarding the habitat in which we live.
Encourage compact development that respects environmental constraints and limits
development in ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas. – RGS
Continue to support initiatives that enhance the stewardship of soil, agricultural
waste, water, air, and habitat resources, including agricultural lands. Work with all levels of
governments to protect and restore waterways to support fish populations in the region. -
RGS
Work with member municipalities, Indigenous governments, neighbouring regional
districts, and the Province to identify, protect, and enhance ecologically sensitive areas, natural
assets, and wildlife corridors. – RGS
Protect surface and groundwater and maintain good soil health by supporting the
implementation of best management practices that minimize soil contamination and erosion,
and reduce runoff and leaching into aquifers and surface water. - RGS
Housing
Below are statements from the RGS with regards to accessible housing, and priority of types of
developments the FVRD supports. Housing is a serious concern in the FVRD, and homelessness
in Mission has more than doubled since 2017, according to the FVRD survey from March 2023.
Chilliwack witnessed the largest increase to its unhoused population in the region from 2020 at
35 per cent, followed by the Eastern Fraser Valley at 28 per cent and Abbotsford at 22 per cent
(link). The development proposal by GWED Holdings Ltd. in no way outlines their units are
intended for lower income housing addressing this significant need.
In addition, there is no indication that the development will include affordable housing, seniors
housing, or special needs housing either, all the types of proposals that the FVRD clearly
indicates it would support for new residential development. The target buyer for the proposed
development, as outlined in the GWED Holdings Ltd documents, are intended to be empty
nesters and retirees, both of which would be assumed to have considerable savings or already
property owners to be able to afford this property purchase.
Potential target buyers for Harrison Rise site could include: Retirees, empty-nesters, families
seeking space and value, and vacation homes. Comparable neighborhoods to Lake Errock are
Harrison Highland, Eagle Point and Rivers Reach price points are $800K - $1.1M depending on
lot size - Market Study presented by GWED Holdings Inc
They are not marketing the development to relieve the homelessness concerns in the area or
support lower income, working class local residents who are searching for affordable housing
options in Area C. For this reason, I don’t see how the FVRD Board can support this type of new
residential development in this rural area.
Support proposals for new residential development which provide a component of seniors
housing, affordable housing, special needs housing, and the use of adaptive housing
construction methods. - RGS
Support official community plans and zoning bylaws that integrate land uses with
transit service and active transportation routes, and encourage infill, redevelopment,
densification, and mixed-use as a means of creating more compact development patterns and
housing affordability, particularly around downtown cores and neighbourhood centres. – RGS
CONCLUSION
This document has outlined the numerous factual concerns presented by the proposed
development for the Lake Errock Gravel Pit. What is most alarming is the lack of impact the
community feedback about this area seems to have on the outcomes.
The feedback provided in OCP Survey Response Summary in January 2023 is in no way reflected
in the updated OCP and the community continues to feel like their legitimate concerns about
this development are not being heard. Given the actions the FVRD has done in adhering to the
developers wishes for a fast-tracked approval, including allowing them to fund third party
consultants to do much of the work surrounding this application and allowing them to choose a
faster application approach than they felt was within due diligence for such a project, the
community has completely fair opinions.
Not only have serious environmental and logistical concerns been brought forward, but the
desire to maintain the character of this rural community seems to be overlooked by the desire
to move this application forward quickly, based on the desired timeline of the applicant.
Due diligence is not happening. Third party consultants, paid for by the applicant, are be being
brought on board and are putting together plans and studies instead of the FVRD Planners who
our tax dollars go towards. Based on the proposed plans provided, neither current residents or
future residents will thrive in this new forced environment.
I would implore the FVRD to do better in this process, and to for the Board to decline this
application for land use change and proposed development this area based on the above
reasons.

I have been in Lake Errock since 1992. I am here because I want the peace and tranquillity that comes with rural life. If I wanted to be in a larger community, I would be so. We do not have the infrastructure necessary for such a large development nor do we want it. The gravel pit would be better served as a park with hiking trails. We do not have the infrastructure, the emergency services, schools, and community amenities that a large subdivision like this would demand and expect. This development would change the whole atmosphere of this beautiful place. The new people would naturally want to be able to have access to the lake. Our park is small with little parking and cannot tolerate the influx that the new development would cause.
This development is not appropriate for this area and must be denied.

We’ve been dealing with this issue for a long time,
November 18, 2014 ‘a cluster of single family homes’
March 29, 2016 Director Alec Niemi’s email ‘…after a decade of community conflict with the pit across from Lake Errock, the pit owners came up with an alternate plan for a very green type of hillside neighborhood…
November 23, 2022 - 290 dwellings
August 22, 2023 - 335 dwellings
Latest - 485 dwellings
I’ve gone to all the meetings I could and the number keeps climbing. I went to the last meeting, it was presented via email as a OCP meeting, no mention of The Gravel Pit development. We weren’t presented the latest updates, with an opportunity to ask questions. We were asked to walk around and read poster boards, being reassured our concerns had been addressed. Obviously they haven’t been. No compromise in the number of dwellings has been realized. We have not been presented with a suitable explanation as to how this development could possibly NOT have an immense negative impact on our community. I took the time to come out and feel this should have been presented to us via power point, with an opportunity to ask questions. It has left me with the impression FVRD didn’t want us to know this was the subject nor does it want to be asked pertinent questions. We deserve better.
Lake Errock tax payer and long time resident

My family and I are part time residents of the lake for almost 50 years and we are against this plan! We have grown up knowing this lake as a safe place to play, walk the streets, swimming, the night sky and all the peacefulness that has come with. The gravel pit was small and unused back then and has since become a real eye sore along with noise pollution over the years. The housing development being put forward isn't going to be any better, it will be worse! As the people have said already, the pollution/danger to the lake, sewage treatment plant, the amount of people, the 2 lane highway, crossings, more people at the lake, traffic, the list goes on. We have experienced first hand the out of control amounts of people at the public beach and their lack of care for the property and environment. Having the amount of housing, people and cars on the mountainside will add to the destruction of Lake Erroch as we know it. The affordable housing they say, really? Nothing is affordable anymore.

I am a new resident to the Lake Errock community. I have worked with municipalities throughout BC and understand the needs and desires to expand regions and communities, such as outlined in the FVRD Regional Growth Strategy. When placing my house offer, I was thrilled with the idea of the development taking place, to increase the future value of my own property. But… then I spent time there, and read the new documents provided by GWEB Holdings LTD.

I’ve talked with the local community, many of whom have lived here for decades and understand the environment, express how they have witnessed the environmental changes already with the rock pit impacting the natural landscape and rhythms of the area. I have taken time to read the recent reports, letters, and impact studies and I do not find GWEB Holdings LTD to have adequately presented a proposal that’s positive outcomes for the community outweigh the volatile impact it will have on multiple fronts.

I’ve seen the natural beauty and delicate wildlife the lake has to offer and worry about all of the same legitimate concerns my fellow neighbours have put forward in previous meetings about the serious negative affects the development will have on the land, water, and wildlife. Though GWEB Holdings LTD have produced some reporting noting the ‘minimal impact’ the development will have, that minimal level is not guaranteed to stay small. For example….

It’s worrisome to have read the following statement: "The south bank of Watercourse B has become compromised. A Water Sustainability Act Section 11 approval application is being prepared to reenforce the unstable section of the bank, and ensure flows remain within the fishbearing Watercourse B and prevent future blow-outs through the bank that have resulted in water running onto the ground and not contributing to the downstream fish habitat. This bank stabilization will potentially allow for an increased developable area Letter for Density Update APLIN & MARTIN CONSULTANTS LTD. PAGE 3 PROJECT NO. 14-158 February 12, 2024 within the northeast corner of the site, and hence, we are requesting to secure this additional density once the WSA approval is received."

Not only has it reported that there indeed ARE environmental impacts already in that area that are having to be contained and fixed, but that due to the cost of these stabilizations… GWED Holdings LTD are now proposing to increase the footprint of the development and the number of units to cover such costs!


In my short time here, I’ve experienced the escape this area provides - not just to residents, but the FVRD visitors coming to the local beach. In the summer our neighbourhood is already at full capacity with roadways blocked. In response to the very real concern about the current over capacity issues at the public beach, the quote is that it is a public beach and the development "cannot guarantee whether future residents would be using those spaces in the future.” Though the statement is true, it is misleadingly foolish to believe that an increase of hundreds of residents who have bought ‘lake side’ property, plus their visitors, will not contribute to higher numbers using the Lake - and with that an increase in garbage, human waste, chemicals from sunscreen lotions, etc going into the water. Additionally, as someone who has attempted to cycle and run along the highway, their proposal to have public crosswalks across Lougheed Highway and multi-use path along the highway to mitigate parking issues is extremely worrisome for the health and safety of pedestrians and drivers.

In conclusion, I’ve seen the Lake Errock community thriving within it’s current model. Lake Errock is a delicate ecosystem, that is in danger with any larger development being built up where there is not sufficient space, landscape, or infrastructures to accommodate. In addition to the environment impact studies, the increase in residents to the area will be quite a significant impact to the entire culture of the area as well, which have not been fully explored.

There is no need for this development to move forward, and does not have the support of it’s community’s needs. I believe the current community of Lake Errock already fulfills the FVRD goals of economic strength and resiliency, living well, and community building, set out in their Regional Growth Strategy. The new development will not provide more affordable housing, as desired by the handful of supportive comments from regional non-locals on this page. The new development will not positively impact the current residents of the area. Therefore, I no longer support the proposed development plans.

I totally oppose the proposed project. From an environmental standpoint, sewage, lawncare pesticides and other contaminants have potential to trickle down to the lake and surrounding land. I've observed the decline and absolute depletion of ecosystems such as tree frogs and other frogs over the past 30 years of owning a vacation property at Lake Errock. The problem of overcrowding at the beach and general pollution left of the beach front (which will be high traffic at the main beach along Errock Place Road as the other side of the lake is closed to public access). The quiet enjoyment of our property will be diminished by vacation goers, new residents, traffic, and construction noises. I vote NO.

I think this project is too big. What happened to the proposed project of 55 houses ?
I am really concerned about Lake Errock, contamination, smells due to the sewage treatment plant, traffic...
Resident of L.E

As a resident for 30 years, I hope the developer has a plan B, with less houses. Several issues with current proposal:
- Water runoff - we all know it runs downhill with the lake being at the bottom, my concern is the impact on the lake.
- Sewage treatment facility and it's odors will have impact on residents around lake
- access to the lake - currently if you are not at the lake by 10am, forget going, and now this development proposal will have increased users, it's a small lake!!
- building on the side of a mountain - who will be responsible if it should slide?
- less gravel trucks? - for the last 4+ years the mine operator has been hauling
loads of raw material to their other pit at the end of
Ohman Road for, I assume future gravel processing, will
be same truck traffic, just from different location.
- Infrastructure needs to be considered and secured BEFORE approving this many residents including:
- schools - Mission can barely support current capacity
- highway - with increased commuters from this development and so
many accidents between here and Mission we need improvements
- fire / health will need to be upgraded to accommodate this many residents
- hydro power needs to be upgraded - we have a lot of outages in this area
- no natural gas in the area - propane is getting really expensive!

We have owned property in Lake Errock since the mid 80s and have always known it as a beautiful get away from the city. Back then, it was a little sleepy lakeside community with very few full time residents. While I realize development and growth is inevitable in the area, I am strongly opposed to this large project. I concur with all the previous concerns posted here. I do not believe that the developer has the future health of the lake in mind, only money. This proposed new community will most likely be advertised as “lake” property, only bringing more people, pollution and traffic to this beautiful little lakeside community.

I live in Chilliwack and I work in Harrison Mills. Since I started at my job 2 years ago I've wanted to move to that area but I have had a hard time finding a place. I would absolutely love to have more opportunity for housing closer to my job, and in such a beautiful place.