B/L #1769 ~
City of Mt,Coy.
zoning B/L,
1979, No. 1651,
Amend. B/L,
1980,

July 28th, 1980,

from Cameron Avenue to Marshall/Tyler Avenue. Mayor Laking further
stated that the rezoning is being undertaken to assist in ensuring the
continued use of the property as a buffer strip between the residential
area and the industrial araa.

Mr. Dan MacNeill, 1759 Warwick Avenue, asked regarding the boundary
ef the buffer strip to the north and Mayor Laking referred to the plan
posted on the notice board Lllustrating the proposed boundaries.

Mr. L. Tyler, 1788 Tyler Avenue was present and spoke to Council]
regarding his property and Mayor Laking advised the buffer strip would
not continue in front of his property, it would be left open.

His Worship Mayor GR. Laking advised the meeting the following
proposed By-Law to amend the "City of Port Coquitlam Zoning By-Law,
1979, No. 1651" would now be considered,

Byeliw No, 1769:

To remeve the Zone Designation of BS-) osaigned te Pareelsa "DL" and
"MyM" -CBy=law Plan 49252), Distriet Lot 4660, Group One, Plan 2294, New
Westminnater Distriee and to assign the Zone Designation of RT-) to the
Hald property,

The City Admingstrator then explained che proposed rezoning savising
that the two properties have the eivie addresses of 1792 Coquitlam
fvenue and 1791 Suffelk Avenue and the regening contemplated will perintt
the construction of a duplex on each puareel., The City Administrator
further explained that these properties are presently owned by the City
and it in antiedpated that after the rezoning in completed the properties
will be effered for sale,

The ujty Admindstrator advised receipt of several letters of opposition
to the rezoning,

Mr. MW, Griffin, 2964 Coventry Creneent, expressed hie oppositien to
the use of the property for a duplex and asked regarding the soning
regulations pertaining to duplex construetion., Mr. Griffin also
referred to the resident's endorsement of the previous road elosure
but stated tia opposition te duplex econstruetion,

Mra, d, Seholl, 18206 Coauitlam Avenue, apoke apatnsat having a
duplex on the property and stated prior to buying their house they bad
enquired as to the sending and were teld dt was single family sondug.

Mra, 1. Groombridge, 1629 Suffolk Avenue, spoke agalnat the duplox

and expressed coneern regarding the possibility of Inereared trafrie on

the street and the devaluation of property. Mrs. Groombridge aise