New ball diamond proposal lives, sale of Annandale diamonds nixed

Jeff Helsdon, Editor

A proposal to build new baseball diamonds on Mall Road is still on the table, but council killed the proposed funding through the sale of the land where the diamonds sit.

The result could be the best of both worlds, since public sentiment at meetings was that people weren’t against the diamonds but didn’t want to see the land for the Annandale diamonds sold to fund the project.

The final motion council passed was to not use the Annandale Heights Ltd. parkland dedication (the ball diamonds) “for residential, commercial or industrial development at this time.” The motion also directed staff to explore funding alternatives, including federal and provincial grants, and to consider potential future uses for the Annandale diamond space once the new diamonds are completed. A separate motion directed staff to apply to the Ontario Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund to fund the new ball diamonds.

Although council members were united in supporting the final motion, it drew some debate.

The topic started with an overview from Development Commissioner Cephas Panschow, who has been overseeing the initiative. He said a report requested at the last meeting to delve into the details of the parkland dedication is still underway. Panschow said a more detailed report on the feedback received was coming at a future meeting,

Gilvesy started by asking whether there should be direction to apply for funding, saying she heard time is of the essence with Ontario Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund applications.

Spencer put forward the motion, which council passed after debating its content, to not proceed with development on the Annandale diamonds. Speaking to the motion, Spencer said she had heard from many people about the importance of green space.

“We have grown substantially; if we can protect green space, we should,” she said.

Coun. Chris Parker suggested if the funding application was time-sensitive, it should be part of the motion. However, it ended up being a separation motion.

Deputy Mayor Dave Beres suggested an amendment to the proposed motion to add the words “residential development” in case there was a proposal to build a burger stand, for example, in the middle of the diamonds if baseball diamonds remained there.

Spencer countered the motion contained “at this time,” adding, “I don’t think we should add a burger stand in the middle of what we’re dealing with.”

“I just hate to leave no development on there because I think if something like that comes up, I think it would be welcome,” Beres said.

Spencer agreed to add residential, as well as industrial and commercial.

Gilvesy said the Ontario Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund was just released, and asked whether that should be addressed, but Spencer said funding for the new land could come from land sales elsewhere or community sponsorship.

Gilvesy questioned the words “at this time” in the motion, and the intent.

Spencer said it means at this time, and even if there was a bylaw, a future council could overturn it.

Coun. Bob Parsons also questioned “at this time,” saying, “At this time tells me it’s going to come back someday.”

Although Spencer offered to take “at this time” out, it remained in the final motion.

Protecting parkland from development

At the end of the meeting, Gilvesy put forward a notice of motion to debate a motion at the next council meeting directing staff to prepare a report outlining options “for a parkland protection bylaw that would safeguard subdivision parkland dedication from future development or disposition.”

A bylaw to protect all donated parkland was suggested at the final public meeting.