Dear Editor;
At the open house last week, a full complement of the district’s operations staff, design engineers, project managers (from Treegroup and contractors) were joined by up to 100 Peachlanders who were interested to see the maps and specifications required by the Ministry of Transportation for safe highway access from the Pincushion development.
We learned that the estimated cost of the work planned is just under $4 million, and that Treegroup has deposited the required guarantee bonds so work can now go ahead with the widening and configuration of the Ponderosa and Princeton intersections.
While welcoming these plans, many residents from the Ponderosa/Somerset areas in particular, also chose to voice their anger and frustration at the town’s decision to forego the primary prerequisite of the area structure plan, which was the provision of a new highway access.
Now that Somerset and Ponderosa are the designated routes, there is much concern about the safety risks and inadequacies of these two roads, including alternative exits in case of accidents or fire.
So far, patching and re-paving is the limit of the planning, and any and all inquiries or input are held up for the long anticipated traffic study. What is holding this up?
Meanwhile, it was a surprise to learn that the developer is not expected to pay for the indispensible realignment work at the Somerset/Princeton intersection. Instead the town’s development cost charges reserves are to pick up the costs.
I sincerely hope that our town will match the stiff backbone of the Ministry of Transportation as they negotiate the division of costs of such a huge expansion.
Dora Stewart
Peachland
- Excited
- Informed
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
16 Responses to “Not happy with access to Ponderosa development”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Building a joining route to the highway up Trepanier that would serve as an alternate route for many different uses would be money better spent. The costs put into the rebuilding of old roads and intersections that are good enough for residential traffic to the standards required to make them a main truck route doesn’t seem equal. The multiples of lights that are in the works on the highway shows the lack of vision for the future when they are a stones throw away from each other.
All of these questions should have been addressed long before now and access should have been the first priority in order to get approvals to continue. Why should the residences flip the bill for upgrading roads to a project that council has allowed to have the wagon before the horse.
What would be wrong with linking an access road along the expanded golf coarse to the connector?
COST!
What would be wrong with linking an access road along the expanded golf coarse to the connector?
This would give direct access to the area without traveling on the less than satisfactory residential roads plus give an alternate escape route for both areas in case of emergencies.
The DCC the developer is paying Peachland should be a sufficient amount to enable construction of the new access road as per the ASP –
” a new access to Highway 97 is proposed as the principal route. This access will be constructed as an initial undertaking to keep all construction traffic from using the local neighbourhood roadways”
If this was the initially plan, and a very sensible idea given the amount of new development, why isn’t it now happening?.
Agree with many comments – the Ponderosa Drive access route was, in one earlier road analysis, declared to be unsuitable as a primary access to new developments for traffic, so a later report labeled Ponderosa Drive as a “secondary, less well utilized” access route to the new development. Also stated it needed widening – and sometime in the future a main sewer line will be installed to tie in Ponderosa area. Unless well planned and designed there will be predictable chaos for several years as road improvements, sewer lines, and major developments happen while increased traffic including construction traffic tries to find a way in and out to Pincushion. No question – the developer should have been forced to build a new access route as phase 1 of the development. No road – no permit – I see no immediate benefits to this development to residents of Peachland – but numerous drawbacks.
Wow…a lot of unhappy people. Ive read the comments, and don t see much of significance in them, as a whole. This isn t just a project, it s a MEGA project, and things aren t going to go smoothly and as planned in every instance. There isn t going to be an additional route off the mountain, nor is one going to be required, and yep, we re going to pay for some improvements to the access routes. What s the problem? It s our town, and it s not up to a developer to pay for everything associated with development. Im anti development for Peachland, but the fact is, it s that time, it s going to happen, whether I like it, or not. Lets not create a bunch of scenarios where there may be problems, and deal with them if they do arise. It s a confined area up top where the development is to occur, and there are going to be some problems for residents, traffic, noise, dust, etc….I guess some people call that progress, and if so, we re into it I guess. As long as the money, and a decent plan are prevailant, and it seems to be a pretty decent plan, I m suggesting that other than some years of inconvenience all will go well.
What a sad state of affairs. It’s as if development matters more than the quality of life in the village.
The Somerset/Princeton intersection upgrading is needed as soon as possible so that heavy construction equipment on trucks and topsoil trucks can turn that corner on the way to the development, far easier than Ponderosa!
Very concerned that a new access road from 97 for the new development – as per the ASP, is now not to be enforced.
Local roads will deteriorate under construction traffic and produce noise, dirt, safety concerns – very poor planning and the developer is off the hook – how did they manage to persuade Council…………..
Peachland Council, the Peachland Highways Task Force ( does it still exist ?) and Min of Hwys have often
declared that public safety is their primary consideration. So, it is only reasonable to expect that another
safe exit from Ponderosa will be finished when construction of the Hwy 97/Ponderisa connection begins,
I’ll point out that, although some developers are required by the municipality to carry out some specific road improvements, all developers contribute to DCCs (Development Cost Charges).
Treegroup will pay about $1,800 per multi-family unit and $2,800 per single family home toward the Roads DCC. That money is accumulated in the bank and will go toward future road upgrades.
The Roads DCC is one of several DCCs collected.
Peachland elite (better known as: Peachland Staff and elected followers) Hang your heads in shame!
This is the exact wording of Area Structure Plan from Municipal web site
Page 2 the executive summary states:
Although the proposed plan development can be safely and efficiently accessed via the existing road network, a new access to Highway 97 is proposed as the principal route. This access will be constructed as an initial undertaking to keep all construction traffic from using the local neighbourhood roadways.
New access ? “safely” and “efficiently” accessed?
I am very glad you quoted this. Yes, it is now part of our current OCP, but according to our planner, Dave Smith, the executive summary is not the legal part of the document. So although it contradicts a later part of the document which states that there will be no “access road” until after housing is built, it doesn’t matter. There will be another public hearing sometime so that this, and other small errors in the document can be ‘fixed’!! Our mayor in contrast, informed me that “initial” can have several interpretations, and three to four years, would still be “an initial” undertaking!
And so the wheels turn…………..
It might have been OK to have the Municipality of Peachland pay for the Somerset/Princeton intersection improvement IF the Ponderosa had kept their commitment to build an access road BEFORE starting construction, as was originally proposed.
So we are to understand that the municipality of Peachland will be footing the bill of upgrading Sommerset/Princeton Ave. intersection//roadways?
This was voted an affirmative by which?: the PAST (or) the PRESENT Municipal Council?
Why are the tax payers being requested to pay for the up-grades of the roads which run through residential; to then be used as an industrail road for Tree Group?
Why are we the tax-payers helping pay for this development? What will be our “perks”?