The school site is on Mavrinac. A major collector road that brings traffic into the residential area from Wellington and distributes it to all the little side streets and courts and crescents. It crosses the ravine and becomes Hartwell Way a collector that brings traffic in from Bayview Avenue.
During the last term ,new residents on Hartwell wanted Hartwell to dead end at the ravine.
Council agreed to do that. An election was coming up.
The Region of York said No! the subdivision was designed for Hartwell to be a collector and that's
what was needed. The alignment had already been changed once.
The Region has authority over the town's planning decisions.
The school site belongs and has always belonged to the developer. I don't see how it could have been posted as a future park site as some residents claim.
The town would have to purchase it from the developer.
The town did not take a site from this developer for a park. The nearest park to this site is probably five minutes away.
The site fronts on to Mavrinac, a major traffic collector. To get to a park there kids would ave to cross a very busy road.
the site is surrounded on three sides sides by homes . Residential lots abut on three sides.
Town regulations require a buffer between homes and active park use of between fifteen and thirty
metres . I don't know which number would be used or why.
A school site is normally 5 acres. I don't know how much the buffer would reduce available park
space Thirty metres is one hundred and twenty feet.
A road width is 24ft. A full width buffer would be five times a road width. That's a lot.
Off two sides of the site, it would be ten road widths. that's an awful lot. But my math could be out.
Parking would have to be provided if the site was to be used forsports fields
people coming from other places for tournaments could not use the busy collector for parking
Cost of developing a park is governed by cost of facilities provided. Soccer is probably least expensive to construct unless we use artificial turf. It costs a million and has to be fenced. Lighting is provided to maximise use and justify expense.
The town has the right of first refusal to buy the site. Not necessarily for a park however.
I don't recall a similar circumstance.
The Province has dictated "intensification " policies to prevent urban sprawl. The Region I understand has policies about infilling.
I am not sure how far senior levels of government are prepared to go to enforce their policies.
It's another question that needs to be answered..
I have no idea how much the land will cost or how much useable space would be left after buffers
are provided .
How much for how much useable space? A critical question.
Can I take a position without knowing the answers.
Nope ...not me.
No one knows all the answers yet. For this reason. I support the usual council's escape-hatch of referring the matter back for further study. This time they need the time & reflection.
ReplyDeleteFar be it from me to inject a sour note. But I will.
ReplyDeleteAurora's taxes are too high and the current Council deems they will have to remain so.
Aurora already spends more on service charges than nearby Towns.
There is no proven need for a park at that location. The numbers do not justify one.
The site is near arterial roads and therefore under Regional authority which aims to in-fill.
A park would not ease whatever traffic concerns have been raised. It might even increase the problems.
We cannot flipping afford to spend money on land with such a high value for real estate.
Enjoy the day.
Sounds very much like someone is trying to jam a large park with multiple uses into a small space without
ReplyDeleteadequate parking in an area not designed for one.