Editor: I’m going to go out on a limb here (pun intended) referencing the Brookswood/Fernridge ’87 plan.
These aren’t trees, these are icons. We should be doing everything to protect our B/F clean air. There’s no innovation, no vision in the ’87 plan. Did anything good come out of the ’80s? (kidding).
I realize property values here are $1,000/square foot, but really, why can’t we do access roads behind these perimeter trees, still accessing main and side streets, rather than clear-cutting to put in another lane or parking lot?
As well as access roads for commercial and residential sites, leave perimeter trees. And please include back lanes for future building of carriage houses — meaning more taxes for the Township.
Also, garbage cans should be in back alleys, as you can drive all through the Township on any given day and know what day garbage pick up happens.
I’m not saying we don’t need development, because we do.
There are many bare acreages to build your big box stores without destroying B/F.
Maybe developers should be made to save a percentage of established trees per development, not to mention contributing to future school buildings to meet the growing population demand.
We need a development now, but with the vision of: “Where people really want to live and shop?”
As it stands now, on any given weekend, we have a convergence of approximately 200,000 people heading for limited parking spaces to four or five big box stores.
It has become intolerable.
When building these shopping centres, why can’t there be a small grove of trees with a bench or two, making it an inviting place to sit before or after taking a quarter mile walk across the parking lot to the store? Is this pie-in-the-sky or just my vision?
Born and raised in B/F, I’ve grown up with these trees for 70-plus years. It would be a tragedy to see these icons clear-cut when there really is an alternative.
Advice to council: There is a reason we have two ears and one mouth; we need to listen more.