The need for more parkland was the subject of debate this week at Wellesley council’s public meeting on the sixth and final phase of the Village Estate subdivision on the corner of Greenwood Hill and Gerber Road.
Council decided to defer the motion to rezone it from an agricultural zone to an urban residential zone until staff can come up with recommendations to include parkland in the subdivision or close by.
Township planner Geoff VanderBaaren said of the 16 proposed lots, single homes would be on lots one to eight, 15, and 16. Semi-detached are proposed on lots nine through to 14, which back onto Greenwood Hill.
“One thing we are proposing as part of the zoning bylaw is to encourage more affordable units in Wellesley, that the lots that are proposed for semi-detached units be zoned specifically for a semi and remove the permission to allow a single to be built on them,” VanderBaaren said.
“What we found in the previous phase was there were a number of lots proposed for semi-detached houses in that portion of the subdivision. Some of those lots have been purchased and single-detached house have been built on them.”
VanderBaaren said the developer was required to put in a walkway along Gerber Road, which was installed. Staff would like to see that continued on north, along Greenwood Hill up to the limit of the subdivision.
Coun. Shelley Wagner asked where the closest playground is to the proposed subdivision. Facilities manager Brad Voisin said Wellesley Public School’s playground would be the closest.
“That’s a distance,” Wagner replied.
Coun. Herb Neher said it’s always a dangerous area to get into, not having parkland.
“The closest playground area, that’s always been a problem,” Neher said. “Would there not be a possibility of getting a mini playground so that the people in that whole playground would be able to have a swing, a place to sit, maybe a couple of park benches, instead of the cash in lieu?”
VanderBaaren said staff considered the parkland dedication requirements for the area. They recommend taking cash from the developer rather than land, a position that stems out of the parks and recreation master plan that calls for acquiring larger parcels of land.
“Taking a small piece of land here is not really going to help the municipality solve their parkland requirements at this point,” VanderBaaren said.
He added the best the township could do there would be five per cent of the proposed 3.4 acres, which comes out to a fairly small area.
Informed by VanderBaaren that the same developer had been involved in previous subdivisions, Coun. Peter Van der Maas asked why the entire area hadn’t been considered as one packaged.
“Had we taken cash in lieu at that time instead of parkland, too?” Van der Maas asked. “Had we given any consideration to anticipating the area would be developed and then combining the total acreage being developed in order to request a larger piece to be set aside for parkland?”
VanderBaaren didn’t have an answer for that, as previous developments occurred before he came to the township.
“It seems to me a developer can develop small parcels and every time a small parcel is developed it will not meet the requirements for a larger green space,” Van der Maas said.
He continued, “But if we know the developer is eventually going to create a development over a much larger area, I think we’re in a better position to demand more or ask for more parkland.”
Tresaurer Theresa Bisch said the cash in lieu is set aside in its own bank account and held until there’s parkland available.
Representing the developer, planner Andrew Head said they’re generally in agreement with the staff report and have no issues with it. He noted parkland was considered at one point in time: they had designed a layout of four parks, but township staff recommended taking the cash instead.
“There are considerations into looking at the future of Greenwood Hill across the street for a future dedication where the park would go there at one point in time. And there’s been some speculation there,” Head said. “I think that’s what helped to drive the parkland idea. That’s still going to be formulated in that area with room to grow and to suit everybody in the neighborhood and not just one single subdivision.”
