HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS-23-89a
1�
RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT File #
Res. #
By -Law #
N�1 191' � • • •ti , � • • � �
June 19,1989
CS -23 -89 FILE #:
LOCATION OF PLAYGROM APPARATUS - FOSTER CREEK
PHASE I PARK - VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose & Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:-
1. That Report CS -23 -89 be received;
2. That Option 5 stating that no further action be taken be approved; and
3. That Mrs. Inglis be so advised.
1.0 BACKGROUND:
1.1 Foster Creek Parkette is located in the Village of Newcastle south of
Highway #2 and between the forks of Wilmot Creek. The park consists of
a narrow wedge of raised tableland immediately adjacent the west side of
Wilmot Creek's east branch. The southern 4/5 of the park was developed in
1988. Trees and playground were added soon after.the grass seed had
germinated. The northern 1/5 of the park is separated from the main body
of the park by a deep grassed gully used to take surface drainage from
private lands.
../2
913r
W
REPORT CS -23 -89 - 2 - May 15, 1989
1.2 In the Fall of 1988 following installation of the playground a series
of telephone calls were received by staff and elected officials from a
Mrs. Inglis who resides adjacent to the park and closest to the park
playground area. Mrs. Inglis appeared before Council as a delegation,
indicating her displeasure with the location of the playground equipment,
the number of children attracted to the site and resulting noise.
Subsequently Council passed Resolution #C- 794 -88 requesting staff to
submit a report to General Purpose and Administration Committee dealing
with the issue. A number of site visits resulted and a decision was made
to resolve the issue in the spring of 1989.
2.0 REPORT:
Staff in reviewing the situation have considered the following options
noting their positive and negative affects.
2.1 OPTION 1:
Relocate the playground to Westview Heights Parkette adjacent Hwy. 401 and
a few hundred feet to the south. The playground.would 66 more removed
from residential properties; however the more remote location would make
neighbourhood policing more difficult; the location is not central to the
area to be served and small children may not be permitted to cross the
busier Sunset Blvd.
2.2 OPTION 2:
Relocate the playground to the northern 1/5 of the Foster Creek Park.
Although this would move the playground some + 100 feet further away
from Mrs. Inglis' residence, it would be located on a parcel of land
too small to properly locate the playground, it would be immediately
adjacent to future private residences and similar concerns are likely
to result and the children must cross a gully which is subject to
seasonal and occasional flooding and mud.
../3
q14
C
REPORT CS -23 -89 - 3 - May 15, 1989
2.3 OPTION 3:
Close the park, consolidate and maintain the land at an Open Space
level of maintenance. This would eliminate the playground and benches
etc. and would eliminate any playground in the area leaving only the
future Floster Creek Park to the north to provide a playground. Residents
in the area would have no conveniently accessible park or playground and
the level of maintenance may not be acceptable to the local residents.
2.4 OPTION 4:
Declare the park to be a passive park and remove the playground. This
would solve the identified concern but would leave the other local
residents' children with no playground.
2.5 OPTION 5:
Take no further action. This option does not address the concern of Mrs.
Inglis but it does provide the service to the remainder of the community
and the park would be used for the purpose it was intended.
3.0 COMMENTS:
3.1 Although we sympathize with Mrs. Inglis, information obtained by her from
the developer or real estate agent, conflicted with the Community
Services Department's park development program for this site. It should
be noted that at no time, prior to preparing the site for development
was the department consulted.
3.2 In overview, there is no solution which can satisfactorily address all
concerned. This park site was accepted for its prime location and
proximity to the open space features of the creek system.
Although individual concerns are considered, the collective needs of the
neighbourhood to be serviced are paramount and dictate the department's
development programs.
Respectfully submitted,
Jos P. Caruana, Director
De rtment of Community Services 9 1
JDC :JPC:sa
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Lawrence E. Kotseff
Chief Administrative Officer