Council approves Clearspring Greens path plan

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 20/02/2021 (1787 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A plan to construct a pathway along Park Road East between Carlton Drive and the Aquatic Centre and from Rams Gate to Fairway Close received first and second reading by Steinbach city council on Tuesday, after a public hearing attracted only one member of the community. A total of seven letters of opposition were received for the pathway which connects the Clearspring Greens neighbourhood to the parking lot serving the Aquatic Centre and Fly-In Golf Club. One was withdrawn at the meeting itself, as Slater Place resident Timo Bullert, in attendance at the meeting, stated he was no longer in opposition.

This new plan replaced a previous one that was before the municipal board without a date for over a year, and even that wasn’t the first plan.

Council first proposed that the entire project cost would be covered by the 146 property owners who would pay $4,802.82 per lot. That was changed to $2,816.16 after the city decided to pay for the lighting.

The new plan is for a three metre wide asphalt path and required fencing with no lighting. The total project cost is estimated at $650,000, half of which will be paid by benefitting homeowners to a maximum of $1,610 per parcel which can be paid as a lump sum or $392.66 annually for five years.

The remaining project costs would be funded by the City’s Capital Development Reserve.

Coun. Susan Penner said the $1,610 individual cost is the same as the cost one would pay on a new lot for the development of a sidewalk. “This was a fee that was not factored into the price of the lots of Clearspring Greens when it was developed as the intent of the developer was to have a rural profile in that area,” she said.

Penner said increased traffic has made a pathway both a safety and quality of life issue.

This proposal attracted significantly less opposition than the first one did. Penner said they had 78 objections in their last public hearing. This time the total came to six.

Opponents argued that the pathway benefitted more than just the neighbourhood. “This sidewalk that only the people living in this area have to pay for will be used for more than just the people living in this area. It is a public sidewalk therefore I do not think it’s fair for other people in the community to benefit from this on our/my money,” Stephen Borkowsky of McFarlane Place wrote council.

Darren and Tanis Penner of Carleton Drive agreed, pointing out most of the path is not in front of their properties. “I most certainly do not agree with providing a sidewalk along the golf course property being our expense,” they wrote.

One letter of support was also received.

Council was unanimous in their support for the new plan, and councillors took the time to thank Coun. Susan Penner for her work on this file.

After the meeting, Penner said she was pleased they could move forward with the plan, especially considering the opposition to the city’s original plan.

“So now to come back with a plan where there were only six objections, is just a dramatic improvement and I’m really pleased that the city and the neighbourhood could work together,” she said.

Because they see it as a safety issue, Penner said it was important to come up with a new plan, rather than wait for the municipal board to rule on their previous application made a year ago.

“We don’t even have a date on when this original file would have been heard,” she said. “So my concern was that if we left the plan as is there would be no chance the path would get done this summer.”

That decision had risks. If council had received 15 objections they would have been forced back into the municipal board hearing process, only they would once again be at the back of the line.