GENERAL BROCK SECONDARY SCHOOL PUBLIC MEETING...PR 75-09 GENERAL BROCK SECONDARY SCHOOL...

PR 75-09

March, 2006

A

APPENDIX C – FACILITATOR’S REPORT

GENERAL BROCK SECONDARY SCHOOL

PUBLIC MEETING

JANUARY 26TH

, 2006

FACILITATOR'S SUMMARY REPORT

PR 75-09

Table of Contents

S:\INET\CCS\2009\12-09\PR 75-09 General Brock Appendix C.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS


PUBLIC MEETING

FACILITATOR'S SUMMARY REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Original Agenda ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Circumstances Change ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Revised Public Meeting Format and Agenda............................................................................. 2-2 2.4 City Council Report ................................................................................................................... 2-2

3.0 VENUE OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 3-1

4.0 PUBLIC MEETING OUTCOMES ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Agenda ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Presentations .............................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.4 Audience Question and Answer Themes ................................................................................... 4-4

5.0 NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................... 5-1

Appendix A - Summary of Comments

PR 75-09


FACILITATOR'S SUMMARY

PAGE 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In 2003, the Halton District School Board declared General Brock Secondary School surplus to its long

term needs. This initiated a statutory series of enquiries as to whether other parities identified within the

legislation were interested in the property. This, over time, would include the City of Burlington, the

Halton Catholic District School Board, other government ministries, etc.

With the declaration of the property as being surplus, a citizens group formed to respond to the

opportunity to secure park and open space lands within this portion of the City of Burlington. This

initiative became the General Brock Park Committee. It undertook extensive research on park and open

space lands available in southeastern Burlington, future development opportunities for the site,

demographics and related analyses.

The General Brock Park Committee worked with the City to undertake assessments related to the

potential of the site being all or partially acquired as park and open space lands. This initiative was

undertaken with assistance from the consulting firm Philips Engineering Ltd. Various site development

options were considered and included parks, sportsfields, floodplain areas, open space, parking and

amenities, residential development, road patterns and related opportunities.

In December, 2005, at a meeting of City Council, a range of park development options were identified,

ranging from smaller passive-oriented development of the venue to larger, mixed passive-active uses of

the venue. At this meeting, Council directed the staff and the General Brock Park Committee to solicit

public input on selected development strategies that had come forward from the Parks and Recreation

Department and the General Brock Park Committee. This meeting was scheduled for Thursday, January

26th, 2006 at the General Brock Secondary School. Two meeting times were scheduled, 4:00 pm to 6:00

pm and 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. The meetings were jointly hosted by the General Brock Park Committee and

the City of Burlington.

Fred Galloway of F.J. Galloway Associates Inc., of London, Ontario was retained by the City to facilitate

the session, including the preparation of an agenda. This report provides the facilitator's information and

assessment of the process leading to and the key themes emerging form the two public meetings.

PR 75-09



PAGE 2-1

2.0 SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

2.1 Original Agenda

In preparing the agenda for the General Brock Secondary School Public Meetings, a meeting was hosted

with representatives of the General Brock Park Committee and the City of Burlington Parks and

Recreation Department. The January 26th, 2006 public meetings agenda was structured into three

components:

An opening overview of the site, history and processes to date;

A presentation by both representatives of the Committee and the City relative to each of them

putting forward their preferred site development alternatives;

An open house format undertaken after the presentations, whereby meeting participants could

view the individual site development proposals and fill out comment sheets that were to focus on

three questions:

o Features that they liked about the various site development proposals;

o Concerns and issues they had about features and directions within the various proposals;

o A preferred proposal or mix of park development initiatives.

2.2 Circumstances Change

Approximately one week before the January 26th, 2006 date, information came forward from the Halton

District School Board that a recommendation was going to the Board of Trustees of the School Board that

the General Brock Secondary School site not be deemed surplus, and that it be retained for administrative

purposes. A re-assessment of the Board's plans and facilities indicated the potential need for an adult

education centre. Also, within this week, an announcement was anticipated from McMaster University in

regards to the potential development of one of its program units on a Burlington campus. Additionally,

information was identified that the Halton Catholic District School Board was going to give consideration

to the possible acquisition of part of the General Brock Secondary School site for a future elementary

school.

This series of information pieces substantively changed the context and decision-making framework

associated with the alternative development concepts for the General Brock Secondary School site and the

nature of the public meeting agenda. The key change considerations were as follows:

The site may no longer be declared surplus and be available in whole or in part;

PR 75-09



PAGE 2-2

Uncertainty existed as to how much of the land the School Board would retain, though it was

understood it would be principally focused primarily on the lands surrounding the current

secondary school building and parking area;

The decision timeframe for the Halton Catholic District School Board was unknown, but could

involve a longer period of time. It was understood their needs could be in the order of magnitude

of six acres for an elementary school;

The overall availability of the site, its future uses, what lands would be available for park and

open space use and other considerations became uncertain, and the decision timeframes around

the various considerations that had arisen were unknown.

2.3 Revised Public Meeting Format and Agenda

As a result of this significant change during the week prior to the public meeting, it was decided to

continue to host the meetings, but to change the format to a public information and update sessions. The

focus of the new format was as follows:

To provide a situational analysis of the changes that were occurring from what had been

discussed with the community over the last number of years;

To have a representative of the Halton District School Board undertake a short presentation on

the current situation and to answer questions about the changing situation and impacts;

To provide an opportunity for the General Brock Park Committee to undertake a presentation on

its site research results, needs assessments, Committee activities and efforts, etc;

To have City of Burlington staff from various departments provide park development, Official

Plan/Zoning and other inputs in regards to the site;

To host an audience question and answer session.

The plan to present specific site development alternatives for park and open space options was cancelled,

as was a planned second public forum that was designed to further focus on the preferred venue

development options that emerged from the first public meeting.

2.4 City Council Report

At this time, City Council had not been provided an information report in regards to the changing status

of the General Brock Secondary School site. Therefore, one of the outcomes of the public meeting was to

PR 75-09



PAGE 2-3

provide a basis for the development of a report back to Council on the new information, the impacts these

changes could have and to determine future possible actions / directions.

PR 75-09



PAGE 3-1

3.0 VENUE OVERVIEW

The General Brock Secondary School site is over thirty years old. It is located in southeast Burlington,

just south of New Street, with Pine Cove Road on the east. It is surrounded primarily by residential

properties. It is also accessible by a dead end access, Johnstone Drive, from the south. It is a twenty-six

acre site, of which four acres are in the floodplain. There is also a tree plantation on the site that was

developed many years ago.

The current site hosts the Secondary School on the western side, with access off New Street. There are

three soccer fields and a running track on the eastern side of the property. There is also a two baseball

diamonds on the property. Two of the soccer fields and the two baseball diamonds are scheduled for use

by the City. The site has very limited street exposure and visibility, being bordered by residential

properties on all sides. This configuration is a unique feature of the site not typical of most secondary

school developments, which usually can have extensive street frontage.

A site acquisition cost was established at between $10 and $11 million based on current market values for

residential or related development properties. The School Board is required to seek market value by

legislation for sites it puts up for public sale.

Residential development had been an on-going consideration from the outset of this initiative for this site

in keeping with the City‟s strategy for surplus school sites. Development could also offset any

acquisition costs that could occur. Significant differences in development scale existed between the

Committee and the City alternatives. The Committee tended to prepare park development alternatives

that utilized most of the site for parks and open space areas, with limited or no residential development.

The City alternatives tended to focus on open space lands adjacent and connected to the floodplain, with a

focus on a parkette or neighbourhood park, and therefore, more limited sportsfield development and

broader residential development options. The highest ratio of parkland warranting further consideration

proposed by City staff was 4.12 ha (10.18 acres), therefore leaving 6.38 ha (15.76 acres) for development.

The lowest ration of parkland proposed by the General Brock Park Committee was 4.38 ha (10.82 acres),

therefore leaving 6.12 ha (15.12 acres) for development.

PR 75-09



PAGE 4-1

4.0 PUBLIC MEETING OUTCOMES

4.1 Introduction

Two public sessions were held on January 26th, 2006 in the auditorium of the General Brock Secondary

School:

4:00 pm to 6:00 pm – approximately 200 to 225 individuals, primarily retirees, parents with non-

school age children, and others who were unable to attend an evening session;

7:00 pm to 9:00 pm – approximately 250 to 275 individuals representing a cross-section of area

residents, sportsfield user groups and interested community members. This meeting ended at

9:30 pm.

4.2 Agenda

The agenda for both sessions was undertaken as follows:

A welcome and opening remarks by Ward Councillor Jack Dennison;

A review of the agenda and a new situational assessment by Fred Galloway;

An overview of the current situation from the Halton District School Board's perspective by

Gerry Cullen, Superintendent of Facility Services;

In the evening session only, remarks by Cam Jackson, Burlington M.P.P. relative to discussions

with the Ministry of Education on school closures and sites. For the afternoon session, these

comments arouse as an answer to questions from the audience;

A presentation by three members of the General Brock Park Committee, involving Amy Schnurr,

Sarah Merritt-Kellogg and Jeff Garratt;

Presentation by City staff, involving Charlotte O'Hara-Griffin and Mike Greenlee;

A public question and answer session hosted by Councillor Jack Dennison and Fred Galloway;

An overview of the next steps, including the need to undertake a presentation to City Council by

Fred Galloway. He also identified the opportunity for individuals to fill out both the survey forms

provided by the General Brock Park Committee and the meeting comment cards where

individuals could put forward their comments.

Closing remarks and appreciation by Ward Councillor Jack Dennison.

PR 75-09



PAGE 4-2

4.3 Presentations

General Brock Park Committee

The Committee undertook a three part presentation as follows:

The presentation by Amy Schnurr referenced the City park map to highlight the deficiency of

designated parkland in the General Brock area, the work of the Committee, focusing on the key

attributes of the venue in terms of its natural heritage, wildlife, sportsfields, importance to the

community, historical perspective and other values. The actual percentage of designated parkland

from previous school closings was identified (but did not include the two schools that closed in

the 1980‟s where no additional parkland was saved). All the closures resulted in parkland

amounts greater that the 5% maximum required by the Planning Act, with an overall average of

16%. Amy‟s presentation also indicated that at the beginning of this process, most of the City

Councillors and the Mayor agreed that “we must do better with Brock” given the unique

circumstances with this being the first high school closure. The General Brock Committee‟s

position is that at the very least, 16% must be considered the starting point when looking at the

parkland dedication and hope that after hearing more about the needs and wants from the public,

will agree to do much better than this. If done right, this could serve as an excellent example for

future potential school closures in this City. Significant background material was provided in

regards to the community's efforts on this particular initiative, the support that had been provided

and the continuing need for community support, volunteers and action.

Sara Merritt-Kellogg‟s presentation focused on sportsfield utilization across the City, an overview

of the long list of City sports groups, many of which have and continue to enjoy the General

Brock facilities. The demand for facilities is on the rise so why is the City not taking any action

to preserve this well used site. Elimination of the fields at this location is a contradiction to a

healthy lifestyle by expecting residents to drive to facilities elsewhere in the City. The General

Brock site does not require City dollars to develop and enhance the fields at this time, as they are

ready and available to use. There was encouragement to get sport club representatives in the

audience to get involved, share concerns and ideas and to come to the table to help find solutions

to secure the General Brock parklands. The need for additional soccer fields, the quality of the

potential soccer fields on this venue and the importance of distributing these sportsfield resources

across the community to serve all residents fairly and equitably.

PR 75-09



PAGE 4-3

Jeff Garrett reviewed a list of possible implications for local and City residents if the General

Brock site is lost to development that included traffic, busier schools, distance to reach

greenspace, pressures on other parks. Indicated that the Committee had established criteria and

tools to assess proposed options for the site. There is a need to look at potential site opportunities

and no focus only on challenges. Innovative and creative financial solutions are required.

Provided an assessment of parkland and open space availability across the City, funding and

financial options, the opportunities and importance of this initiative and the need for the

community to be engaged in both the benefits and the investments necessary to realize a positive

result for the southeast area of Burlington. Jeff concluded by reminding the audience who the

decision makers are on this issues, that it is important to communicate directly to the Mayor and

Council and reviewed a list of key ways the public can make a difference.

City of Burlington Staff Presentation

A two-part staff presentation was undertaken by City of Burlington staff. The first presentation was by

Charlotte O'Hara-Griffin on the various types of park and open space venues the City develops. These

involve four types of sites: parkettes, neighbourhood parks, community parks and city parks. The range

of sizes, features, focus, etc., was provided for each category.

Mike Greenlee undertook a presentation on planning legislation and the Official Plan on an overview

basis. The presentation then explained specifically the General Brock Secondary School site, which is

designated as residential-low density in the City's Official Plan, along with a watercourse designation on

the western boundary. He indicated that residential, low density areas are permitted to a density of

twenty-five units per hectare. Additional comments were provided in regards to housing intensification

and Zoning By-Law. The Zoning By-Law indicated for residential development, a minimum lot width of

forty-nine feet, or 5,383 square feet of total lot area would be required. An amendment to the Zoning By-

Law would be required if density intensification were to occur.

Gerry Cullen, Superintendent of Facility Services, Halton District School Board

Mr. Cullen's presentation affirmed that the School Board Trustees had repositioned the General Brock

Secondary School site from surplus to the administrative needs category. The focus of this change was

for the potential development of an adult education centre. He also identified that there had been some

general interest by the Halton Catholic District School Board in regards to an elementary school site,

however there was a general uncertainty as to priority and long term possibilities.

PR 75-09



PAGE 4-4

In regards to the Halton District School Board, their primary site interests would be the building, the

parking lot and directly adjoining lands. He estimated that the Halton Catholic District School Board

would be looking for a site of approximately six acres. These two uses could result in a park and open

space site of approximately four to six acres.

Cam Jackson, Burlington M.P.P

Mr. Jackson had undertaken, prior to the public meeting, to make enquires of officials in the Ministry of

Education. He confirmed the process by which the Board must submit facility planning and

decommissioning decisions to the Province. He felt that the possibility of developing an adult education

centre would have three impacts. First, it could create an opportunity to sustain open space lands.

Second, it would require funding approval from the Province. Third, it would likely take approximately

one to two years before anything else could occur on the Brock site. He also felt that the need to sell the

Brock site in order to generate capital dollars for other school board investments may not be as significant

depending on future provincial capital funding policies. He also overviewed some of the past school

closures in Burlington, and the loss of parkland that had occurred on those sites.

4.4 Audience Question and Answer Themes

Between twenty and forty questioners put forward questions and/or comments at each of the two public

meetings. The questions/comments tended to focus on the following themes which reflected the general

tone and points of interest of those who attended the public meeting. A summary of the comment cards

completed by meeting attendees was prepared by City staff and are attached as Appendix A.

Need for Parkland and Sportsfields

The Brock area residents have been part of the City for a long period of time and should have

facilities of the same quality as other parts of the City. The time to move is now when the

opportunity exists, as there are no other significant opportunities to acquire parkland as the area is

fully developed.

The area is under-serviced in terms of parkland, and this is valuable open space land for the

young families moving into the area, as well as the seniors and others who live in the area.

Past school closures in the area have resulted in a loss of important park and open space lands.

We need to learn directly and significantly from what has happened with past school closures.

PR 75-09



PAGE 4-5

How do we know the sixteen percent identified for the Brock site is adequate, even though it is a

higher percentage that what other school closures resulted in? Why sixteen percent?

Parks are a vital part of a community's development, self image and sense of community. They

can bring the community together for special events and activities. They add to the quality of life

and property values. The loss of parkland in this area of the City would have a dramatic affect on

reduced opportunities for recreation and fitness activities, community development, etc.

A representative of the Burlington Minor Soccer program indicated the need for additional soccer

fields, and concern that concentrating them in one part of the City, such as north Burlington,

would not provide an effective distribution and servicing across the community. The Brock site

represented an important venue for sportsfield development and must be considered for that type

of parks and open space delivery.

Has the City done anything in relation to the park?

Is there anything that the Burlington Oldtimers can do to assist the situation?

Have there been any developments or time frames provided for Brock Park?

Finances

What is the cost to purchase the site? – indicated at $11 million;

Can expropriation by the City be used? – it was indicated it cannot be used as a way to secure the

site due to provincial legislation;

Taxpayers have already paid for the site once, why would they need to pay for it again through

the City? – reflects the mechanism by which provincial funding occurs that separates municipal

and school board ownership;

If the site is sold by the School Board, where do the funds go? -the School Board would use the

funds in support of other school developments;

What capital funds does the City have to acquire this site? – the Strategic Land Acquisition Fund

was identified, which is a generic fund for land acquisitions;

Could funds be diverted from other projects, such as City Park? City Park's funds come from

Development Charges which are assigned to new development that results from population

growth;

PR 75-09



PAGE 4-6

Community fundraising needs to be part of the overall initiative, we can‟t depend totally on the

City;

Could other facilities, such as Sherwood Forest Park be sold and the funds utilized for the Brock

site – these types of actions could be taken, but would pit one neighbourhood against another

neighbourhood which is not a preferred or acceptable approach.

Educational Uses

What is the Board of Education's perspective on the use of the Brock site with these recent

changes in status? – as an adult education centre, utilizing the current building, parking area and

immediately surrounding lands

Where is the Catholic School Board tonight and what is their plan? – they cannot attend as the

Board has not taken an official position. In 2003, they had declined an interest in this site, but

have now identified this site as a possibility. Their needs could be in the order of six acres.

What could McMaster University provide, such as a school of architecture or other interests? –

McMaster University is interested in developing a program-based campus in Burlington, however

it will not be able to assess this location until the School Board determines the future use of

General Brock Secondary School building and overall space availability on this site.

What are the implications of the educational uses that have arisen? – will likely result in

uncertainty as to whether all or part of the site will be available for alternate uses for potentially

one or more years.

Residential Development and Traffic Impacts

Area streets are already significantly impacted by traffic. Bringing more residential development

into the area will heighten traffic congestion, pedestrian and children's safety and area

accessibility.

Residential development would result in a significant loss of the park and open space lands that

are used, valued and needed by the community. Also, more people would live in an area serviced

by less parkland resources than currently exists.

Increased residential development will require stop lights on major intersections and on New

Street and other avenues to slow traffic down.

PR 75-09



PAGE 4-7

Assurances were sought that a thru street would not occur through the General Brock property

and Councillors were asked to give assurances of this. – Council members could not give

assurances, as no overall plan has been developed for the area, nor are all the factors known.

Residential development on the General Brock Secondary School site could result in reduced

property values as density levels and congestion would increase.

Summary

The following are the key summary points that emerged from the two public meetings:

The need for the City to act assertively to secure what park and open space lands become

available at Brock, pursuing the broadest possible size and opportunities. Significant support was

provided verbally and via comment cards for the long term preservation of significant park and

open space lands in this area of Burlington.

A need for clarity exists as to School Board and other educational / institution uses of the site, and

related to both School Board and City financial strategies in terms of use and availability of

funds, etc.

Concerns over the proposed residential development impacts on density increases, traffic, public

safety, property values and overall quality of life.

An interest in creative solutions that bring about a positive result for the area and in the use of

these valued lands as park and open space resources.

Recognition that the community itself will need to be part of the solution related to both

commitment and financing.

PR 75-09



PAGE 5-1

5.0 NEXT STEPS

The following next steps were identified, but are significantly dependant on key decisions to be made by

the local School Boards:

A report to be prepared for City Council that focuses on updating them in terms of the recent

situational changes associated with the General Brock Secondary School;

On-going contact with the Halton District School Board and the Halton Catholic District School

Boards in terms of their future directions and discussions relative to the future use of this site;

Development of a communications program to inform the community as events become more

solidified and more concrete information is provided;

Continuing discussions with the General Brock Park Committee and City officials, relative to

incorporating School Board discussions and information as it becomes available, and developing

a go forward plan as a basis for future community consultation.

PR 75-09



PAGE 5-2

Appendix A – Summary of Comments Received by the City

General Brock Surplus School Site Public Meeting Comments Parks & Recreation

January 26, 2006

Comments:

We see no priority or rational for removing green space south of New Street. There are so few

areas now neighbourhoods to walk our dog or allow our grandsons some space to play.

After attending January 26th the public open house, I have taken the opportunity to fill the

comment sheet expressing my fears of the likely loss of the unique parkland on the General Brock

Surplus School site.In 1974 we have moved to the present address; this was part of the Kastelic

development. Our backyard is bordering the present School Board property. This part of the land

was expropriated from Reg & Viola Jones, our now deceased neighbours. The justification was

for building another school on this site. Reg was allowed to continue limited farming since it

became apparent that the second school would not be built. The Myers Lane Community was

also native in closing the access from this street to the school property by elimination of the old

“right of way” thus creating an exclusive area for various sports activities (see OMB hearing). In

addition to the legal documents about Jones‟ expropriation, you may obtain a more personal view

from Jones‟ living daughter; Mrs. Eveline Waber, 1396 Niels Avenue, Burlington, Ontario,

telephone: 905-332-4142.

I am in the 86th of year of my age, one could conclude that my view on the problem are less

influenced by my interest for not suddenly looking at high density buildings, but much more

about a health environment for development of much younger generation of Burlingtonian‟s.

In this belief I hope that the administration of the community is having a long rage plan:

1. For not destroying what is already available, or for reducing to the minimum area

2. To circumvent this quote high price for the property, I think it should be possible to

budget yearly amounts of the money. This I understand was thus far, not practiced

3. Since the “Save General Brock Parklands” organization has no power to actively engage

the “City”, the “School Board” or the “Provincial Government”, the onus is falling on the

management of the “City”, which should proudly take this challenge for the benefit of the

whole community.

I am surprised that “MAC” would not consider the location of the surplus school property. The

apparent promotion of a downtown location deserves a more detailed presentation to the citizens

of Burlington.

In a recent study new asthmas cases have increased 4 times and it is attributed to poor air quality.

Trees give us oxygen (clean air), absorb Co2, shades for a picnic, beautify all seasons & stress

release as we take a walk with nature. Especially with the population rising, it makes it all the

more vital for Burlington to have a serene, green space with trees to escape to from the hectic

pace of concrete and crowds. As if these weren‟t enough reasons, no price tag can buy a healthy

PR 75-09



PAGE 5-3

planet (atmosphere). Developing even part of the property would be a mistake that would last

forever. Do the right thing and preserve it. If there is a will there is a way.

Please leave us Brock Park! Our only green spaces or parks are school properties. As they close

schools, there go our green spaces, and once gone, they are gone forever. People need these parks

too preserve the effects of living in this hectic rat race of Southern Ontario (GTA).

In Northern Burlington open space and parks can be planned for and set aside. In the south, the

only open space seems to be around the school, which is owned by the School Boards. Their

objectives are to fund new school in the north and does not include park. The new developments

have areas allocated but the south has no areas set aside for green space, so everything has to be

bought – when it is all developed in the south, what then? It takes many years to grow a green

space and a few days for a developer to remove it.

As a member of Burlington Sport Alliances I am concerned about loss of field and diamonds,

green space for activity; organized as well as free time use. We need more not less in Burlington

to promote healthy active living. This must be a priority for a smart City.

I strongly support the work of the “Save General Brock committee” to preserve as much green

space as possible.

We must save as much green space as possible here in the fast growing Burlington.

Please do not allow Johnston Drive to become a through street

As this property was paid for from our school taxes, please preserve our green space and sports

fields

No new development in Brock Park. Borrow $8M from bank and repay over 30 years if School

Board fails to respond. Mortgage should be quite manageable.

This saving the Parkland is very important. Don‟t destroy this City because of greed. This is a

classy City dont not make it a blue-collar town.

Public green space is important, essential for every single individual living in our City. Without

General Brock Parkland, members of our neighbourhood have very little useable green areas.

Future generations depend on our wisdom now.

“in-fill” & “densification” appears to be happening on an opportunistic basis. We have seen

„green space” losses due to school closures in the past in our community (Laurie

Smith/Strathcona). We have also lost the „green” portion of Central Park to parking lots for the

Rotary Centre & Library. To lose Brock Parkland will surely diminish the Community‟s quality

of life. Let‟s save this space for future generations.

Keep green space. How is General Brock land presently slated in new City land use plan?

Green Space is important to preserve

PR 75-09



PAGE 5-4

Environmental issues should by now be at a top priority. No development in the middle of this

area.

We are losing our green spaces very quickly; housing is dense enough as it is. We have very little

park space in south Burlington. Every little price of property is being filled up with housing.

Time for City to start saving our green spaces once gone, you don‟t get them back.

Keep as a school site, and maintain parkland. I thought McMaster wanted to establish a

Burlington Campus?

We have lost too much park space south of the QEW. That is why it is so important to keep this

park, instead of the major on park as Kerns Road, what a bad location?

Personally, I use the Brock parkland many time each week throughout the year. My children

(when yon) enjoyed the soccer field as well. Hopefully a significant amount of property will be

retained as a community we will also be willing to ensure this.

We need green space in this neighbourhood not more high-density housing.

The Park land is desperately needed, as tow play soccer here; my kids are now in Burlington

Youth Soccer. We moved from the north because it is different, we don‟t want the north

replicated.

As our City grows and infill becomes more common, I feel the City would be very short sighted

to lose any or all of the Brock site. It is established and doesn‟t need developing.

I would prefer that no additional homes would be built on this property. The only way that this

can be achieved would be to develop the property as some form of institution (i.e. a campus)

Very informative meeting-I am very concerned about he mental and physical health of the

residences, especially children, if there is no green space available. Appreciated Cam Jackson‟s

update.

I think they should make an entertainment park for family to go for the day and activities like

swimming, biking, skatepark, and playground.

Park land need, keep green space in the City

First choice-leave property as is and find a use for the building. 2nd

choice, maintain playing

fields and if necessary, build only on existing building site, over the years, schools are closing in

the south and being built in the north. Te south is becoming a “have not” area. This is very

short-sighted-Green space in the south must be protected.

The residents of Burlington need more open space/parkland. This parcel of land has already been

zoned “residential”. How often in a history has such a zoning designation become changed to

open space parkland?

PR 75-09



PAGE 5-5

We have a young family, we run, walk ride and live at Brock Park. This is our quality of lie that

will be impact upon. It would be hard to articulate to my children why “their space” could be

lost.

It is critical that the open space be maintained. It is so important o the community.

First-terrible pen and nothing to write on. Great work!

Brock‟s site has parking for the present building and soccer/recreational fields. I think ever effort

should be made to keep that profile for its value to the City and its people.

Any development should be geared toward senior low-rise housing geared to in home

Environmental concerns require a major focus, as surrounding trees age a planned progressive

planting surface for the area is required. “trees are our lungs”. Compliment to Committee and

City on a very responsible approach.

Save the Parkland

Community Park, some single family development, no through traffic to Johnston Drive

Let‟s keep the open space for kids. Soccer/Baseball/Football are good for kids. Don‟t take away

their place to play.

Please come up with some innovative ideas, capital money.

Why does Burlington Planning have “lets turn the parkland into houses, condo‟s, etc.” as their

only agenda? Keep our “open space” open. We have too little parkland as it is.

City should be prepared to act a purchaser or last resort of any lands surplus to the Board of

Education, in order to preserve the parkland that currently exists, especially in view of the loss of

parkland in this area from the sale of other elementary schools (Laurie Smith & Strathcona).

Do not sell to a developer, keep it as it is. i.e. peaceful place for kids and adults

Excellent turn out by residents, and staff of City and Board of Education. The client showing

schools closed percentage of parkland remaining was skewed, because it did not include Laurie

Smith & Strathcona schools. (both closed I 1987). I have lived in Burlington since 1974-raised a

family, walked dogs and volunteered for many years, all of it made worthwhile by the quality of

life I Burlington. Please continue to make it worthwhile, conserve green space.

With the current rate of growth in Burlington, it is obvious that parkland, playing field space is at

a premium. It seems very shortsighted to give up this space, knowing that the cost to replace it in

the future will greatly exceed the money to be gained today.

I feel it‟s important to maintain the integrity of the current land use. Please maintain the current

or increased amount of green space. You can‟t build or make new land, please stop the growth.

Keep Johnson a dead-end. Keep the parkland. We have paid for it. This is Roseland/Upper

Roseland‟s only parkland choice. Get creative.

PR 75-09



PAGE 5-6

Save the green space, no more houses

Keep all existing open space within the City of Burlington. Once we allow development to

pursue our existing open spaces, they will be lost „forever”.

Find a creative way to pay for it.

Lip service provided by Council, 16% parkland preservation is ridiculous!

South Burlington is already a victim of developers, building new house on every available lot,

constructing monster houses where modest homes once stood. If the character of south

Burlington is to be retained, we need to conserve the small amount of green space we have. We

need playing fields, playground area, public washrooms a parking area, a place to walk dogs in a

well-lit area.

It is important for quality of life to keep open parkland and sport fields.

We not need the money raised by the selling of this land. Do not sell the parkland.

Wellington Square Public School closed with no parkland as well as 24+ years ago.

Once the parkland is gone, it can never be returned. Please maintain some green space in the

south of Burlington. Don‟t make Burlington another Missisauga; we live here for a reason.

We need the site for a “real” Catholic High School for our southern region. Look at the other

schools in Burlington, Assumption is too small.

The City must ensure that this parkland is obtained for the future use of the residents. We should

never have houses built on this land.

Thanks for your participation; we need more financial scenarios for our consideration.

What are the next steps? How communicated to stakeholders. Great job by Jack Dennison, good

open forum.

It is a shame that when we need parks for our children to play in that we would let an area such as

the Brock Parks for housing development. Are our priorities tied up in getting more tax dollars or

in the physical welfare of our children?

Open space, very important, used by all local children, adolescent, parents, dogs. If we take away

land for our children to play, biggest health problem in Canada is childhood obesity is

encouraged. No park of this size with the number of fields exists in south Burlington. Have

already closed 4 schools in south with extreme loss of open space. Environmental concerns with

creek running through it?

We are concerned about the traffic. It‟s very important to have green space, not more density. I

agree, that Burlington is full! Please try to be creative and save more than 16% parkland.

PR 75-09



PAGE 5-7

Good representation of all level and fair answers.

We paid for this property with our school taxes; this park area must be preserved in total.

It‟s too sad and very sad that north Burlington gets all the parks and the 30years plus residents of

south Burlington are left with minimum percentage of green space.

Tuck is bursting at the seams, maybe they can look to Brock instead of adding more troublesome)

portables. More housing built, more hydro needed. We already a problem with that, why add to

it? Stop spending money on “grand” project such as the Lakefront Project, etc, and think of the

real needs of the community and keep the quality of life we enjoy in Burlington (such as space,

clean air (thanks to trees), wild life, etc. Dead end streets are contributing to having a better

quality of life by reducing traffic. Please keep Johnston drive a dead end street.

New housing belong in the new area only. Parkland was never intended to be house lots in

waiting. Why does a school board have the say in how lands provided to them through City Plan

get to determine the land‟s fate when they no longer have use of the land for it‟s intended

purpose?

This was an extremely valuable meeting, it is critical for the community be involved clearly all

representatives that presented tonight need to come together on common ground to save this

common ground. I did not see an image tonight of the representatives coming together, the

surprises presented between the groups showed that!

The property, currently owned by the Public School Board, is also owned by the public and is not

for sale. It is to be used for purposes as presently gained a school (s) and park

It is a bad idea to sell any land for development and lose the parkland. The quality of life. ??

I live behind the building in Maranatha homes. We enjoy the open space, beautiful nature, trees,

and its great to see for many to enjoy a variety of sports

I want more information about the School Board with their plans, about building new schools in

this area.

I am very upset with the City's decision to sell off the land in the General Brock school site.I have

lived in this area for 19 yrs. And have over the years used this park to walk dogs, participate in

soccer games, bicycle with my children, picnic with them, climb trees, and just get away from it

all. We have seen the tree farm area grow from small trees only a couple of feet tall to full sized

trees. We used to rip away the long grass around the blue spruce so that they could continue to

grow. I honestly feel as if this area is an extension of my own backyard. When I developed

ulcerative colitis about 6 yrs ago it became my goal to make it to Brock and eventually be able to

walk around the track again. I accomplished that goal and walk twice daily around the track or

just around the school. We have dogs that need to be walked on a daily basis and without this

park we will honestly reconsider living in the Burlington area. Dogs are a big part of this area,

many families have committed to dog ownership, but dogs also need to run and play without the

confines of a leash, and we were hoping that we could renegotiate with the City, to have times

during the day when dogs could be let off leash legally. There are always people at the park

walking dogs, at all times of the day and night, and all seem to be well behaved and friendly. This

is a very important role of the park; it keeps dogs and owners happy because it is such a large area

PR 75-09



PAGE 5-8

no one is ever in another person's space unless they want to be. We can seek out company or be

solitary. Not like the other parks in the area where there is such overcrowding people with dogs

give up trying to use them.I truly believe that open space is very important to all people in a

neighbourhood, whether they are sports enthusiasts, regular walkers or occasional users, it gives

everyone a chance to relax and therefore allows a more harmonious relationship between

neighbours. Since we are able to walk our dogs at Brock our dogs don't have a need to be in our

backyard by themselves to relieve their energy, which means they are not outside barking and

disturbing everyone.This park is invaluable to our community I can't tell you how much I would

miss that park if it were no longer available, I would be heartbroken, as would many others.When

I was at the park the morning after the meeting I noticed a large silver Mercedes coming into the

park as I was getting ready to leave. I waited to see where the car was going, It took a very slow

route around the whole school parking area, and the man and his wife were pointing and

gesturing about various features of the park, I am thinking this was probably a developer

checking it out. We also noted that sometime early last week someone ripped down the sign to

"Save Brock Park" that had been duct taped to the fence at the entrance to the park, and while it

could have been teenagers, I have my doubts, there are hardly ever teens hanging around that

area.I have not come up with any new ideas about how the park could be saved, but I would be

willing to help fund raise or pay user fees or whatever it takes to keep this park going.By the way,

does anyone know why the Catholic schools in the area cannot just expand instead of building

new schools, is there really that much demand for a whole new school? What's behind that? Let

me know if you need help.

First I would like to congratulate the members of Council for their responsible answers to the

many questions that were asked of them at the meeting last Thursday evening.This being said I

was disappointed (that this being billed as a public open meeting) there was little representation

from the people that are interested in developing this property. I realize that a final decision now

looks like it has been deferred for another couple of years but at some point a decision will have

to be made and something done with this area. It is a valuable piece of property and if it is not

properly utilized the school board is going to have to continue to subsidize and maintain it with

funds that could certainly be better spent elsewhere. It is unfortunate that the longer it takes to

make a decision on this the more expensive it is going to be to develop it. I must admit that I have

not been very involved in this issue even though I live within a block of the area but from what I

can see looking at their website the "Save the General Brock Parklands Committee" comprises

mainly of residents whose homes back unto the property (and they probably do not want to lose

their dog runs) or they live on Johnston Street and do not want their street potentially opened to

through traffic (this was one of the questions at the meeting). I have little sympathy for the

gentleman that asked this question because all he had to do was stand at the end of the street

before he bought the property and he certainly see that the possibility could exist at some time for

this to happen. This is much like the people who buy residential property (that is usually

discounted because of this) close to an airport and then complain later about the noise as the

airport grows. The point made re all the trees being cut down (most are around the outside of the

property anyway and could probably be saved) and the bunny rabbits leaving the area is pure

nonsense and I hope the residents in the area can see this. In addition the traffic issue is just a

scare tactic and if the new housing is planned properly the people moving into this area will not

be creating a bee line for the QEW every morning but instead will probably be retired and sitting

in their kitchens and/or backyards having a cup of coffee. My feeling is that to make the best

decision we all need to get a clear view of what all the alternatives are, and to do this we need to

hear from the people that have plans to develop the property. There is enough land in this parcel

that I would be very surprised if a reasonable compromise cannot not be worked out that gives

each side a portion of what they are looking for. I think everyone is supportive of retaining a

PR 75-09



PAGE 5-9

soccer field and/or some reasonable green space, which would still leave ample room to build

additional housing that could take advantage of the land available and broaden the tax base in this

area. Mid to higher priced executive single and/or town homes similar to the development just

developed off Caroline Street east of the Wellington Square United Church parking lot will solve

the committee's concerns about more children (and the need for more portables or classrooms) in

the area because the majority of people looking for and investing in this type of property have

already had their families, and like my wife and I, can assure you will not be starting this process

over again.Thank you for taking the time to read this and hopefully some good judgment and

common sense will prevail. I do hope that City counsel will not bow to pressure from a small

special interest group that in my opinion is out to do nothing more than protect their own

interests. I cannot speak for each of my neighbors but in discussions with many of them they all

agree with me on this.

GENERAL BROCK SECONDARY SCHOOL PUBLIC MEETING...PR 75-09 GENERAL BROCK SECONDARY SCHOOL...

Documents

Transcript of GENERAL BROCK SECONDARY SCHOOL PUBLIC MEETING...PR 75-09 GENERAL BROCK SECONDARY SCHOOL...