HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 05-11
Cif Report To
Planning & Development Committee
PICKERING Report Number: PD 05-11
Date: March 7, 2011
01
From: Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject: Red-line Revision Request
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01
Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited
Part Lots 17 & 18, Concession 3
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1. That Report PD 05-11 of the Director, Planning & Development be received;
2. That the request by Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited for a red-line revision to draft
approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01 to convert ten townhouse blocks
containing 64 townhouse units into 49 detached dwelling lots with an associated
reduction of the park block, be refused, and
3. Further, that City staff be authorized to engage a solicitor to attend any Ontario
Municipal Board hearing regarding the requested revision to draft approved Plan
of Subdivision -SP-2008-01, if necessary.
Executive Summary: Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited (Mattamy) has requested a
revision to a portion of the draft plan of subdivision in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood
which was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) (see Location Map and
OMB approved draft plan, Attachments #1 & #2). The OMB decision was based on the
fact that all the parties to the OMB Hearing had reached a settlement on the appeals to
-the approval of the draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment and that the
plan before the OMB represented good land use planning. The proposed revision is to
replace 64 street townhouse dwelling units with 49 detached dwelling units (see
Attachment #3). The proposed revision requires the realignment of local roads which in
turn results in a 0.14 hectare reduction in the neighbourhood park block.
The proposed revision request is not supported as it results in a less sustainable
subdivision design and there is no compelling land use issue that would justify the
proposed modification. The current OMB approved draft plan was the result of a
negotiated settlement and resulted in the design of the draft plan that complies with the
policy requirements of the City of Pickering and allows for the implementation of the
vision for development in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood.
i
Report PD 05-11 March 7, 2011
i
Subject: Red-line Revision Reque42008-01 O Draft Plan of Subdivision Page 2
It is recommended that the requested red-line revision to the draft approved plan of
subdivision be refused and that Cou cil direct staff to engage a solicitor to represent
Council's position at any future OMB hearing on this matter.
Financial Implications: As the subject request is a matter that is under the
jurisdiction of the OMB, legal representation for the City at any subsequent OMB
hearing would be required. The cost associated with obtaining legal representation
would be the responsibility of the Cit .
Sustainability Implications: The proposed unit reduction in the OMB draft approved
plan of subdivision reduces the sustainability of the draft plan in terms of efficient use of
land, transit supportiveness, housing ix, appropriate transition and parkland/open space.
1.0 Background:
Mattamy has requested a revision to draft approved plan of subdivision SP-2008-01
in Duffin Heights. The proposed revision is to replace 64 townhouse lots with
49 detached dwelling lots in tli western portion of the draft plan adjacent to the
mixed corridor block which abuts Brock Road. The applicant's rationale for the
revision is the lack of market interest in the proposed townhouse product (see
Attachment #4).
The requested reconfiguration of the townhouse blocks to detached dwellings lots
requires a northerly shift in local roads resulting in a 0.14 hectare reduction in the
size of the neighbourhood par block. The approved park block is 1.99 hectares
while the requested revision would result in a park block of 1.85 hectares.
The implementation of the draft plan is being phased by Mattamy. The first phase in
the. southern and eastern portion of the plan is nearing registration. The second
phase will include the lots and tie park block that are being considered as part of
this report. The requested revi ion does not require a zoning amendment.
2.0 Comments Received
2.1 Agency Comments,
2.1.1 Region of Durham
The Region of Durham Planning Department has indicated that the Regional
Official Plan policies encourage higher density development especially along
adjacent Brock Road, a Type ` ' Arterial Road, Regional Corridor and Transit
Spine. The Provincial Policy tatement and Growth Plan also encourage and
support mixed housing types with higher density development to create healthy
and sustainable neighbourhoods.
Report PD 05-11 March 7, 2011
Subject: Red-line Revision Request
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01 Page 3
03
The proposed revision moves in the opposite direction intended by Regional and
Provincial planning policy to support and promote mixed housing types and
denser development.
Further, the OMB decision to grant draft approval was supported on the principle
that the mix of housing types and the development's density was good planning.
The proposed revision deviates from the draft approved plan with no justification
for how the proposed revision maintains good planning principles.
Durham Planning suggests that an alternative revision which maintains or
increases the range and mix of housing types and development density would be
appropriate greenfield development in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood.
Townhouse development adjacent to the future mixed use development block
provides an appropriate transition'to the single family housing in the remainder of
the plan and should be reconsidered by the applicant (see Attachment #5).
2.1.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has advised that they
have no objection to the red-line revision and note the revision offers an
opportunity to enhance the on-site water management practices as it will result in
more lot area that can be used for infiltration, or roof water for the clean water
system (see Attachment #6).
The above statement is true when considering the change in the building
footprints of the two forms of housing types. However, given that the
reconfiguration also results in a 0.14 hectare loss of park area and its potential
for infiltration, the overall impact on enhancement to stormwater management is
anticipated to be negligible.
2.1.3 Other Agencies
No other agency (being technical agencies) that provided comments on the
requested red-line revision expressed any concern with the revision.
2.2 City Department Comments
2.2.1 Development Control
Various technical reports. and engineering drawings would be required to be
resubmitted if the requested revision is approved. A park grading concern has
been expressed with the realignment of the most northerly street next to the park
block. As the park block is to be programmed with an active sports field (soccer
pitch), the applicant should be required to demonstrate that the park grading
would not be affected (see Attachment #7).
Report PD 05-11 March 7, 2011
Subject: Red-line Revision Request
Draft Plan of Subdivision S -2008-01 Page 4
04
2.2.2. Engineering Services
The applicant should provide revised landscape plan for the park to
demonstrate that the reduction in park size would not adversely affect the park
layout and grading and that there would be sufficient buffer space between the
proposed soccer pitch and the children's play area (see Attachment #8).
3.0 Discussion:
3.1 The Proposed Revision is Contrary to Sustainable Neighbourhood Design
and is Not Supported
The proposed revision to the raft plan results in a reduction in sustainability in
terms of:
• efficient use of land and tr nsit supportiveness
• housing mix
• appropriate transition of built form
• . parkland/open space
3.1.1 The Proposed Density Redu tion Results in Less Efficient Use of Land and
Reduction in Transit Suppo
The proposed conversion of 6 street townhouse units to 49 detached dwellings
is a net loss of 15 dwelling uni s which reduces the overall density of the draft
plan. The OMB approved dra plan provided a density of 39 units per hectare
and the revised draft plan will esult in a density of 37 units per hectare.
While the proposed revisions ill meets the minimum 30 units per hectare density
of the Official Plan, the reduction in density is contrary to the vision for Duffin
Heights. This vision is fora neighbourhood built at transit-supportive densities
that are higher than typical su urban development. The prescribed density range
of 30 to 80 units per hectare i dicates the intention of a medium rather than low
density form of development. The density of the approved draft plan is already at
the lower end of this range, an the proposed revision reduces the density further.
3.1.2 The Reduction in Townhouse Units Diminishes Housing Choice
The proposed conversion reduces the percentage of townhouses on the draft
plan from 42 percent to 23 percent. A basis of sustainable subdivision design is
to provide a wide variety of housing types, forms and prices. The proposed
revision is moving in the opposite direction to this principle.
Staff note that the OMB appr ved .plan already represented fewer housing
choices than the draft plan considered. at the Public Meeting, which included
lane-based dwelling units and live-work townhouse units. The proposed revision
to include a greater number o detached dwelling lots further reduces housing
choices in the draft plan.
Report PD 05-11 March 7, 2011
Subject: Red-line Revision Request
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01 Page 5
QJ
3.1.3 The Townhouse Blocks provide Appropriate Transition
The townhouse blocks provide a desirable transition in built form between the
higher intensity, multi-storey buildings anticipated within the Brock Road mixed
use corridor, and the detached dwellings to the east.
3.1.4 The Size of the Neighbourhood Park should not be Reduced
The proposed revision results in a 0.14 hectare reduction in the neighbourhood
park block. While it is recognized that from a facility fit perspective the reduction
in park area may not be significant, the park is the only neighbourhood park in
Duffin Heights, and represents a focal point for the neighbourhood. For this
reason, the park area should be maximized rather than reduced.
Reducing the neighbourhood park block by 0.14 hectares would require the
provision of an equivalent amount of parkland elsewhere in the draft plan. It is
staffs position that the net park area in question is more beneficial within the
neighbourhood park than as a separate open space elsewhere in the subdivision
and therefore staff would be requiring the net park area to be made up by
extending the eastern limit of the park to include lots 1, 2 and 3 as required.
3.2 There is No Land Use Justification to Revise the OMB Approved Plan
The applicant has requested this revision to the draft plan based on current
market conditions rather than on land use planning justification.. The applicant
notes a lack of market acceptance for street townhouses in the Mattamy
development. Staff suggest that a modification to the townhouse product may be
a more appropriate avenue to explore than replacing almost half the townhouse
product with detached dwellings.
4.0 Ontario Municipal Board is the Approval Authority for this Revision
As the subject draft plan of subdivision was approved by the OMB, the Board is
also the approval authority for the requested revision. If Council refuses the
requested revision, as recommended in this report, Mattamy may refer the
requested revision to the OMB where the OMB will adjudicate the requested
revision.
If Council supports the requested revision it is anticipated that Mattamy and staff
will approach the OMB to approve the requested revision Therefore, the
recommendations of the report include direction to engage a solicitor in order to
attend any Ontario Municipal Board hearing that may be required.
5.0 Applicant's Comments
The owner has been advised of the recommendations of this Report.
Report PD 05-11 March 7, 2011
Subject: Red-line Revision Request
Draft Plan of Subdivision S -2008-01 Page 6
06
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. OMB Approved Draft Plan of Subdivision
3. Requested Red-line Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision
4. Applicant's Submitted letter with Requested Red-line Plan
5. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department
6. Agency. Comments - TRCA
7. City Comments - Development Control
8. City Comments - Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
r
Ross, Pym MCIP, P Neil arro ;-MCI , RPP
Principal Planner - Development Re iew Director, -a ning & Development
Marg Wouters, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
& Urban Design
RP:jf
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering ity Council
f. 22~ ZD(l
Tony Pre edel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
ATTACHMENT# TO
REPORT# PID IL U 7
SUBJECT
LANDS
0
RAL C
Y
U
O
m
r
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART LOTS 17 & 18, CONCESSION 3
OWNER MATTAMY (BROCK ROAD) LTD. DATE JAN. 14, 2008 DRAWN BY JB
-07\
FILE No. SP-2008-01 & A001/08 SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY RP N
oTeranelr cEnterprises Inc. and ils suppliers. All rights Reserved. Nol a plan PN-15
j;La205 MPAC and Its sup li e. All rlg hts Reserved. Not a Ian o/ S- y,
h
J3~C]~~141
C H
Q o~o
08
OQOmO~
ti~ JQ W ~
°o~ U=2J2~
a ~n~~pZ2
4O X23
3ZY
n ~ 1. Q~ O o ~ V~
H V of N~mI
m I me Z Q
5 s
• . . no U
Cl)
On.Q _
DC
> co
Q p N - _
O N O
CL CL cc CL CL M
C - _ • h = c o _ • - I. - - _ Lill
0 -1
UM. - ~n9n--- -
;n 0
Q Q • _Y
1
- 33y~ NJp~gcoJ
, , o m v. iO k
z auuo - - • 3pbl~in v
.I
I. 1
a; 1 I
O F-
O o
~ O n
O Y 1
O U b
O r
~ J n
W CD
X_ V -
gu a nm
ooh
EmS
V
C!v0~-J y:~OCJL]
ITTACHP,,SENT#_•,3 iC. n n
F;rr Cr;7+ p , p 09
he222W^
=C~~~~SN
2 ~
eS
WO~O~OJ
oeomo~
a~ ~QC~UC~p
Z 0 W a=°Qa?
a W V o o ~oaya
W CC Z Q~o• X23
Z W W Z w"'7 ;s mWa
J Z = D J ~Ya~o;
0 0 Z W a
VI Z X 0~ G o F
C PI
Z CL
"p P N ~~P ~ f 4
" , a f
J W Q J~~~ G R N9 . a
(L 17
O v z n? 8
0 Be
LL O O = az ? ' ~s
r Y 1 Y ~ s R X s ] q
O V O m s R R s R a s: ]
a
W N a w
J 0 O t^ ? =g o' ~s
M 0 N o e* ]
9
CL _ g 8 3 : n
li N O o
p M o CN • r9 ,
no .a i LLJ i S P ' - z
Z V/ C~ ~w S 8 LL4 le
S W
0 Of
0 al. ;c A
LU r : Y d
3
U ~ m m Z aV) S
Z J Q w ..w. n d.-.
a
Q Z FEET ° a ^ -
F-
W Q _ _ : x a ]
Q C ° ^ '
1 G a
D 4 n x a
W ] s^
0 LL
LL > s 3
Z W -
^ r N33bZ~~Ojgr°~ F
a auuo ] s v v a 3Jb v:
olq LL
R.J4°0
d
W
w
O 3 rY
o o U
Of 0,
Cr N n
C) U
oot a
W m n ~
"d
q~F dad
~d 0
p Member of The Sernas Group Inc.
® ATTACHMi~ 110 Scotia Court T 905 686 6402
REPORT# PO S" / Unit 41 F-905 432.7877
Whitby, ON sernas.com
Lt N 8Y7
November 29, 2010
r
HAND DELIVERED
City of Pickering
Planning & Development Department
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
Attention: Mr. Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Oeoinorphic Sciences Principal Planner - Development Review
Land Development Engineering
Land Development Planning Dear Mr. Pym:
Municipal Engineering Services
Re: Submission of Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01
Transportation & Transit. Planning Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited
,ity Infrastructure Design Part of Lot 17 & 18, Concession 3
Water Resources Engineering City of Pickering
Our Project No: 04565
Further to the recent discussions between representatives from Mattamy and
members of the City of Pickering Planning Staff regarding the proposed
revisions to the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01, on behalf of
Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited, we are pleased to submit the material outlined
below and enclosed.
1. Twelve (12) copies of the Redline Revision of Draft Approved Plan of
Subdivision SP-2008-01
2. Twelve (12) copies of the revised Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01 for
approval purposes
3. One (1) reduction, 8'/2 x 11, of each of the above mentioned plans
4. One (1) CD of each of the above mentioned plans in AutoCAD format
5. One (1) cheque in the amount of Five Hundred Twenty-five Dollars
($525.00) made payable to the "City of Pickering" for a re-circulation fee of
a Draft Plan of Subdivision
6. One (1) cheque in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($1,500.00) made payable to the "Regional Municipality of Durham" for its
Amendment review fee
The revised Draft Plan of Subdivision proposes modifications to a portion of
the lot mix in the northwest corner of the Draft Plan. This revision results in
minor changes to the adjacent local road pattern and, in turn, the
neighbourhood park."
2/
J
ATTACHtVIENT# ETA
City of Pickering
Mr. Ross Pym
November 29, 2010
Page 2
The revision proposes to eliminate 10 blocks of street townhouses (64 units)
located in the northwest corner of the Draft Plan, and replace them with 49
single detached dwelling units of 9.15m and 11 m frontages. The modification
to unit type has been proposed based on the observed lack of market
acceptance for Street Townhouses in the Mattamy (Brock Road)
development.. However, although the proportion of unit types has changed,
there remains a significant number of units in each unit type category.
To accommodate the increased depth required for the proposed single
detached dwellings, the local roads have been shifted slightly to the north.
Although the local roads have been shifted to the north, the orientation and
nature of the intersections with William-Jackson remain unchanged. As a
result, the Neighbourhood Park Block has been decreased slightly from 1.99.
ha to 1.85 ha. The local park continues to be programmed and has the same
functionality as originally intended. As part of the pre-consultation, a
representative from .Mattamy met with Operations and Emergency Services
staff, who advised that there were no concerns over the reduction in the size
of the park.
It is important to note that the road pattern and orientation of the proposed
units (i.e. flankage to William-Jackson) are not being fundamentally altered by
this revision. Nor is the alignment of William-Jackson being altered. As a
result, the revision will not alter the significant level of flexibility available in the
design and development of the Mixed Corridor Block on the west side of
William-Jackson.
The proposed revision to the plan will result in a decrease of only 15 units;
from 310 units to 295 units. The revised Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision
remains in conformity with the medium density designation with a total net
density of 37 units/ha. Also, the proposed single detached dwelling units
conform to the approved zoning requirements of the S-SD-SA-3 designation
and therefore an amendment is not required.
..3/
ATTACHMENU %1-TO
REPOHT# 12
~ ~W~
City of. Pickering
Mr. Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
November 29, 2010
Page 3
If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned directly.
Yours truly,
SERNAS ASSOCIATES
ell,
Bryce L. Jo ,da" n, MCIP, RPP
Principal, Planning Manager
DAG/BJ/br
Encl.
cc. MattamY (Brock Road) Limited Attn: Mr. R. Miller, Mr. A. Wisson
Sernas Associates, Attn: Ms. D.Gilbert
ATTACHM#T®
0 ~ HC.P08T~ IzO.~~-J~°
[zi 4el January 18, 2011
• Ross'Pym, MCIP, RPP
Planning & Development Department
City of Pickering
The Regional One The Esplanade
Municipality Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 .
of Durham
Planning Department Mr. Pym:
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E
4T' FLOOR Re: Regional Comments on a Red Line Revision to Plan of
P.O. BOX 623 Subdivision Application S-0-2008-01 - Mattamy (Brock Road)
WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3 Limited
(905) 668-7711
Fax: (905) 666-6208
E-mail: planning@ We have received a red line revision to an OMB approved draft plan for
region. durham.on.ca the above noted application. The revised application consists of 227 lots
.vww.region.durham.on.ca for detached units, 21 blocks for 68 townhouse units, a block for future
A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP mixed use development, a neighbourhood park block, 2 village green
Commissioner of Planning blocks, a block for storm water management, reserve blocks, walkways,
roadways and a road widening along a portion of Brock Road.
The proposed revision would replace 64 townhouse units with 49 single
detached units reducing the overall units/area density and housing mix
ratio in the subdivision plan and Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. In our
previous comments we indicated that Regional Official Plan policies
encourage higher density development especially along adjacent Brock
Road, a Type `A' Arterial Road, Regional Corridor and Transit Spine. The
Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan also encourage and support
mixed housing types with higher density development to create healthy
and sustainable neighbourhoods. The proposed revision moves' in the
opposite direction intended by Regional and Provincial planning policy to
support and promote mixed housing types and denser development.
Further, the OMB decision to grant draft approval was supported on the
principle that the mix of housing types and the development's density was
good planning. The proposed revision deviates from the draft approved
plan with no, justification for how the proposed revision maintains good
planning principles.
An alternative revision which maintains or increases the range and mix of
housing types and development density would be appropriate greenfield
development in the Duffin Heights. Neighborhood. Townhouse
development adjacent to the future mixed use development block
"Service Excellence
i,:; x' Cornrnuniti~s"
i
AT TACHMENW-5 TO
REPORT# PO f)S
14
provides an appropriate transition to the single family housing in the
remainder of the plan and should be reconsidered by the applicant.
Please contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter.
Gm
Dwayne Cam bell, MCIP. PP
Project Planner
Current Planning
I
I
TORONTO AND REGION. C I V -4~Ac`E BT;~ T®
onserva REGION.
.JAN 14 2011
1 5 for. The Living City CITY OF PICKE'RING
January 13, 2011 PLANNING ~REVVELOPMENT CFN 40468
BY E-MAIL AND MAIL
Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner
Planning and Development
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
Dear Mr. Pym:
Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application No. SP-2008-01
Request for Red-line Revision
City of Pickering
Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited
Thank you for the opportunity to review the following documents in support of a red-line revision to
the Draft Plan of Subdivision for the Mattamy (Brock Road) lands within. Duffin Heights:
• Letter from Sernas Associates, dated November 29, 2010, received December 17, 2010;
• Drawing No. DP-1, Redline Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by Sernas Associates,
received by the City on December 3, 2010 and received by TRCA on December 17, 2010.
We understand that the proposal is to revise the portion of the lot mix in the northwest corner of the
Draft Plan. This will result in minor changes to the adjacent local road pattern and the
neighbourhood park, and eliminates 10 blocks of street townhouses (64 units) to be replaced with .
49 single detached units.
TRCA staff has no objection to the red-line revision.. However, we note that the revision offers an
opportunity to enhance the on-site water management practices as it will likely result in more lot
area that can be used for infiltration, or roof water for the clean water system.
We trust this is of assistance. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
cerely,
to en H. Heuchert, MCI , RPP, MRTPI
Manager, Development Planning and Regulation
Planning and Development
Extension 5311
cc: Andrea Keeping, Sernas (via e-mail)
Bryce Jordan, Sernas (via e-mail)
Marilee Gadzovski, City of Pickering (via e-mail)
Rodger Miller, Mattamy Homes (via e-mail)
GAH0111e\Public\Development Services\Durham Region\Pickering\mattamy duftin heights_4.doc
Member of Conservation Ontario
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 wwrw.trca.on.ca
City, n~ ATT'ACHM ip~ T®
REPORT#
16
CKERING Memo
To: Ross Pym January 20, 2011
Principal Planner - Development Review
From: Robert Starr.
Manager, Development Control
Copy: Coordinator, Development Approvals
Subject: Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-01
Mattamy (Brock Road) Limited
Part of Lot 17 & 18, Concession 3
City of Pickering
We have reviewed the revised draft plan for the above noted subdivision and provide the following
comments:
General Comments
1. Should the Revised Draft Plan be approved, we will require a set of engineering plans
including, but not limited to, Grading, Servicing, Utility Coordination, Erosion & Sediment
Control, Park Design to be submitted for approval.
2. A Stormwater Management Design Statement is to be provided from the engineering
consultant indicating that the revisions in no way affect the storm sewer design or the
overall stormwater management concept.
3. We have a concern with the realignment of Liatriss Drive with respect to the proposed park
grading. This is an active play area where grades will need to be maintained between 2% -
5.0%. The applicant should be required to demonstrate that the park grading.will not be
affected by this proposal.
e
r; . ~g/pgq~gpgppppp pqRp~~~~yypp~~ ~~ppyy44pppp (GG(/~~'' qq■■~~pp~~~
AT T6~66HMENW-1-- o
PICKERING Memo
1811 BICENTENNIAL 2011
To: Ross Pym January 20, 2011
Principal Planner - Development Review.
From: Arnold Mostert
Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development
Copy: Director, Operations and Emergency Services.
Division Head, Engineering Services
Subject: Request for Red-Line Revision for SP-2008-01 Mattamy (Brock Road) Ltd.
- File: SP-2008=01
i
Engineering Services Division has reviewed the Red-lined revisions to the Draft Plan of
Subdivision submitted by Mattamy and provide the following comments:
1. Provide a revised landscape plan for the Neighbourhood Park to demonstrate that the
reduction in park size will not adversely affect the park layout and grading and that there
will be sufficient buffering space between the proposed soccer pitch and children's play.
area.
/am