Posted by Bob P, a resident of another community, on Apr 21, 2012 at 10:10 am
The parkland dedication requirement always brings lively discussion. There are two schools of thought, 1) grab in-lieu fees and use them someplace else, or 2) require the developer to provide recreational facilities that are project serving.
I was always reluctant to take in-lieu fees unless the project was so small that adequate space was not available for a park. I am totally against 'tot lots' or 'pocket parks', just ask anyone who had to listen to my ranting about them. They are almost never used. They should never count toward the 6 per thousand.
I am also reluctant to expand the definition of 'park land' to include other types of facilities. Parks, both active and passive serve many purposes, some of which do not involve recreation uses. They are open space, buffers between uses, green breaks between built environments, just to name a few.
I encourage the planing process to look more closely at this plan and find creative ways to include parks and recreational opportunities for this community. It will be worth the effort.