Our concern relates to…

ERO number

019-4953

Comment ID

59289

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses

Comment

Our concern relates to Schedule D of the OP whereby a cycling trail is shown to be located in Stanley Park south of Bell Creek immediately north of the abutting homes on Edgehill Rd. We have attached a sketch with a clip from Schedule D to show the area we are referring to. In this area, the edge of Bell Creek is literally within 1 or 2 metres of the rear yard property lines of the homes in this area.

This trail is inconsistent with other parts of the OP, namely:

- This is an environmentally protected area (as per the OP). The cycling network is identified as "active transportation" within the OP document while EP areas are supposed to be restricted to no more than passive recreation.
- There is insufficient space between the creek and the rear yard property lines throughout most of this area. Furthermore, there is an extreme change in grade between the creek and rear yard property lines throughout this area (anywhere from 2 to 4m). Therefore, a cycling trail is not able to be physically constructed without contravening the requirements of Section 3.5 of the OP.
- This area is a wetland area (Provincially Significant Wetland) and is prone to flooding. The proposed cycling path is within the floodplain.
- Construction of this type is inconsistent with the Provincially Significant Wetland designation.

In most, if not all, other cases, this cycling trail network is located within streets, where it belongs.

Even if this Schedule is meant to simply be a concept it should not contain concepts that are inconsistent with the OP's own requirements.

If this trail is allowed to remain to be shown in this Schedule residents are concerned that when it comes time to construct it we will be told that it is part of the OP and we should have objected to it through the OP process. At that point there is no other appeal process available to the residents.

Therefore we are requesting that this line be removed from this schedule.

Supporting documents