Letter to the editor - full version

In this week’s edition of the newspaper, Letters to the Editor ran a shortened version of the letter below. This is the full letter.

For the past decade, a passive park and adjacent naturalized wetland in the Campbell Drive neighbourhood has been threatened with repeated and persistent development efforts by the Town of Uxbridge, despite a 2016 staff report indicating that the park was not suitable for development into an active playpark, and despite significant community opposition and concerns for the ecologically sensitive lands that would be impacted by the development. Development of this park is expected to commence on September 1, 2025.
While the Town prefers to call the naturalized wetlands ‘stormwater ponds’, the land is zoned Environmental Protection (EP) and has evolved into a naturalized wetland that is teeming with wildlife including a wide variety of amphibians, turtles (Blandings, Snapping, and Western/Midland Painted), small mammals, and migratory, seasonal, and year-round bird populations. The turtles (two are species at risk and the Blandings Turtle is an endangered species) lay their eggs in the grassy areas of the passive park adjacent to the naturalized wetlands, and the development of this area into a playpark would effectively destroy their populations. Not only will the playpark require substantial grading, it is likely that a number of mature trees will be destroyed as part of this project. These habitats, and our larger concerns, have been brought to the attention of the Municipality on numerous occasions.
Despite this, the Town quietly put out a Request for Proposal in April, 2025 for the development of the passive park into an active recreational area. At present, the community does not seem to be aware of this project - there has been no notification to the residents or signage on the site. In fact, there has been no recent or meaningful community consultation about this project for years. The Survey Monkey survey (undertaken a few years ago by the Town that suggests community support) can hardly be considered valid - the survey was significantly flawed as it permitted people to vote (one way or the other) from anywhere in the world, and for as many times as they wanted. There appears to have been little to no community engagement to advise that there was an online survey to complete, so that many people were not able to share their opinions. The fact that the survey was online also excluded those residents who were not familiar with using online Apps. This survey cannot realistically be considered an accurate reflection of community opinion.
We have many unanswered questions, including:
Why is this matter being pushed forward, away from the public eye, when in 2016, council moved to retain the park as is? At the time, council received a staff report that determined that the passive park was not a suitable location for an active playpark. The report cited ecological and environmental concerns, including the need to destroy numerous mature trees and to fence the pond. This fencing would prevent turtles and other creatures from moving into, or out of, the water.
Given the environmental issues around this passive park, and its adjacency to the ecologically sensitive naturalized wetlands, how is it even considered suitable land for a structured recreational playpark? 
As there are other areas in the neighbourhood currently zoned Recreational that could be made into a playpark, why are they not being considered?
Why are zoning regulations not being respected for the passive park? It is zoned OS (Open Space) not Recreation (REC). Under the Planning Act the installation of an active recreational space with built structures is not considered to be an acceptable use for OS zoned land, particularly with its adjacency to an ecologically sensitive wetland.
Perhaps the approximately $86,000 earmarked for this project would be better spent installing playground equipment in Centennial Park where it could be enjoyed by families who live in the area as well as visitors to our downtown? The affluent Campbell Drive neighbourhood, with its large backyards and quiet streets, does not need a playpark to be installed at this environmentally sensitive location. The park already provides valuable spaces for community gathering and educational and recreational activities. It is used throughout the seasons- for adults, it is a peaceful refuge to walk in and to recharge. While there are very few children of an age to use a playpark in this community, older children already actively play in this park- they ride their bikes, play baseball, tag, and, in the winter, they toboggan on the low hill. All of us are intrigued listening to the frogs singing in the wetland in the spring and watching turtles coming out of the water to lay their eggs. I cannot imagine a better place for children of all ages to engage in active and imaginative play while becoming the environmental stewards of the future.
I ask again, given the environmental concerns and public pushback to the development of this park, why is this space even being considered? How can the Town celebrate the creation of ‘pocket forests’ and the retention of the King Street parkette while at the same time engaging in the active destruction of this fragile and ecologically sensitive habitat?
Joan Crosbie, on behalf of the The Friends of Campbell Drive Passive Park