FORT FRANCES—With town council set to make a final decision next Monday whether or not to pass a bylaw to rezone the Nelson Street Park for residential development, area residents aren’t giving up the fight to keep it as “open space.”
Those on hand for a committee of adjustment meeting this past Monday evening were encouraged when the committee unanimously voted in favour of the property remaining “open space” at this time, after hearing their cases for saving the park.
“I think it shows there is more than just the council’s opinion, and we’ve made a strong presence and we’ve made a strong argument it [the park] should remain the way it is,” Michelle George said after the meeting.
“This has been the same argument we’ve had—well, myself, for the past four years and others for the past almost 18 years,” she added.
“I hope the recommendation those gentlemen made has an impact on council,” remarked area resident Steve McEvoy, adding he realizes council does not have to heed the committee’s recommendation on this matter.
“It shows they’re listening to us, and are speaking on behalf of the people and the people’s interests over and beyond our neighbourhood,” said Eric Rude.
“The petition that we have out in the community is attracting lots and lots of signatures—well over 500 to date,” he noted.
The petition calls on the mayor and council to:
•maintain the zoning of the park as “open space”;
•reaffirm its status as a “park” and protect it from future development;
•invite a community group or service club to consider adding facilities to it, as deemed desirable, to enhance the use of the park for the entire community; and
•promote the park as part of the La Verendrye Parkway/trail system.
“Keep it ‘green,’ keep it happy and safe for families of the future,” stressed Rude. “That’s what my dad asked for 18 years ago, and I believe in what he believes in.
“Let’s quit trying to do short-term fixes, let’s do long-term.”
Rude’s father, Aage, has lived in the Nelson Street Park area for 24 years. He opposed the rezoning of it back in 1990—and continues to do so.
Rude said the committee’s decision indicates “a step in the right direction by keeping it a park for future children.”
George, Rude, and McEvoy said they and other residents also plan to present council with the aforementioned petition at the public meeting next Monday (April 28), at which time council will vote whether or not to pass the bylaw to rezone the property at the northwest corner of Nelson Street and Williams Avenue from “open space” to “residential 2.”
If council does go ahead with the re-zoning, any member of the public can appeal the decision, in which case it will be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board, which, in turn, may set a date for an appeal hearing.
If the OMB decides in the town’s favour, the property would have to be surveyed and appraised.
Council then would vote on a bylaw to declare the property surplus, authorize the disposition of the land, and determine the method of sale.
At this past Monday’s committee of adjustment meeting, the contingent of local residents—some from the Nelson Street Park neighbourhood; some not—made a strong case for keeping the property as “open space.”
George and her family have lived in the Nelson Street Park area for nearly seven years, and fought it back in 2004 when the town was eyeing it for residential development then.
“This is something our neighbourhood has felt very strongly about,” George said. “We have a long history, not just back to 2004, but dating back almost 18 years.”
George noted the value of the property as “open space” is being realized by more than the residents who live near it, and this is evident by the petition being circulated around town.
As such, she said town council should see its value to the whole community, not just those in the neighbourhood.
George also said she understands the people interested in building on the property are local. As such, the property would not stimulate a new tax base, but simply see those interested individuals move from one part of town to another.
“The fact that council sees fit to take away the park to accommodate four residential lots lacks foresight and appropriate planning,” she argued.
The usage of the park has been challenged “time and time again,” noted George, but to her there’s no question it offers a safe, open space for children to play which other local parks don’t necessarily have.
Just this past weekend, the property was being used by children flying kites and feeding seagulls.
George also pointed out all parks are defined as “open space,” and she felt that should council continue to pursue the rezoning of the Nelson Street one, “all parks become vulnerable.”
McEvoy stressed the property has value greater than four or five residential lots, and holds great importance to those living in that neighbourhood.
He noted it is a different world from when he was young, and in a time when kids spend more and more time watching TV, playing video games, and communicating via computers, and parents worry more and more about their children’s safety, it’s rare that residents have a neighbourhood park where their children can play outside during all four seasons—and still be visible to their parents, grandparents, and neighbours at all times.
McEvoy, who has four daughters, said the park is a “community spot,” a centre for the neighbourhood that “ties us all together.”
“I live in a neighbourhood that most people can envy because it’s safe, close-knit, and friendly,” he remarked. “If you lived in my area, you wouldn’t want to change anything about this spot.
“It’s the best neighbourhood in Fort Frances for a family with small kids.”
McEvoy added the mobilization of those opposed to the rezoning speaks volumes about its importance.
“If so many people want to save this park, then please recognize its importance to us and its importance to this town,” he said. “Leave our greenspaces green.
“That is what the real importance of greenspace is—once you lose it, you don’t get it back,” he stressed.
Area resident Irma Armit said she felt the development of the property would have a negative impact on property density and, in fact, affect property values for the worse.
She also noted the park is important to local children as a play area because there is no way children can get to other parks without crossing busy roadways (i.e., Scott Street and Front Street).
As well, the riverfront is not a place for kids to play.
Armit added the Nelson Street Park should be promoted more as a place for the general public—not just those living in that part of town—to stop and appreciate it as “greenspace.”
“Why should it go? It’s a place for kids. It’s safe,” echoed Bob Armit. “It simply doesn’t make sense. Council, I think, needs some vision of what they want.”
Bob Dakin, who does not live near the Nelson Street Park, also opposed its proposed rezoning. He noted the town was told by mill management that numerous retirements will happen in coming years, and that Fort Frances can expect about 200 new residents in the future.
Council responded by offering the Nelson Street Park for development.
But Dakin said he felt council disregarded the fact the mill “has been releasing workers and not replacing them, that retirees will not be vacating their jobs all at once, that there are at present a large number of houses on the market [and this does not vary greatly from year to year], and finally the fact that there are a large number of lots available on the market awaiting development.”
“There are areas of town whose residents would welcome the development of empty lots,” said Dakin. “This park is not an empty lot and has not previously been designated for development.
“It has been designated by past councils as a park, and only this council has seen fit to change its designation to ‘open space’ and then pass a bylaw permitting a housing development.”
After hearing out the public Monday night, the committee of adjustment (consisting of Dan Belluz, Jim Brow, Doug Kitowski, Bill Martin, Gord McBride, and Peter Sas) unanimously voted in favour of the property remaining “open space” at this time.
“If it’s not broken, why fix it?” said committee member Bill Martin. “You’ve got a park now. If you put the houses on it, you don’t have a park.
“That park is servicing the east end.
“I’m not going to recommend building some buildings there,” Martin added, noting the town always can bring the property matter up in another five or 10 years if it has to, and a different committee might give a different recommendation.
“Right now, we don’t have to do it. It’s serving a purpose. Leave it alone,” stressed Martin.
“Council is pushing this forward as though it is a do-or-die thing; as if it has to be done,” echoed committee member Jim Brow, adding that developing these four or five residential lots “doesn’t mean anything” when it comes to solving the town’s shortage of building lots.
“There are places around here that have been surveyed and they have not been developed, and I, for one, can’t see that selling four lots and shutting down greenspace is going to improve anything in this town, especially housing,” he argued.
“There’s land around here that can be used.”
The committee’s recommendation will be referred to council at its meeting next Monday, but the final decision with the rezoning lies with council.
At its March 24 meeting, council voted 4-3 in favour of moving forward with the process to see the Nelson Street property developed into housing lots.
Mayor Roy Avis and Couns. Andrew Hallikas, Sharon Tibbs, and Rick Wiedenhoeft voted for it while Couns. John Albanese, Ken Perry, and Paul Ryan voted against.
(Fort Frances Times)
Fort Frances Times
Local News from Across the Rainy River District
