Resident starts petition to fight dry pond at Thornhill park
Worried about dangers to children, decreasing property values

Yorkregion.com
July 31, 2014
By Simone Joseph

Randi Fellus has fond memories of throwing a ball around for her dog in Gallanough Park.

While her pet died years ago, Fellus still enjoys seeing people using the park, whether it is to fly kites, do Tai Chi, meditate, toboggan or just walk or run with their dogs and children.

Fellus has lived near Gallanough Park for 31 years.

The Thornhill activist is concerned the park will change for the worse because of the city’s plan to introduce a dry pond and has started a petition against it.

She and fellow resident Alan Smith hope to form a committee of residents which will go to Vaughan council and challenge the idea of creating the pond at the park.

The desire to change the park dates back to a massive storm that hit in 2005, causing major damage to public and private property in the Yonge and Centre streets area of Thornhill, where Gallanough Park is located.

A 2008 study compared alternatives to reduce flooding and recommended building a new storm water management facility in the park.

The study found that the preferred solution was to build a so-called dry pond in the park, south of the Gallanough Resource Centre. Based on residents’ input, the city says its plan includes: a relocated soccer field, minimized tree removals, an area minimally inundated with water, and an area that would drain well before and after large rainfall events, when not acting as a storm water management facility.

Vaughan council has voted in favour of creating the dry pond water facility to prevent flooding.

But, at a June 25 public meeting this year, residents urged Thornhill Councillor Alan Shefman to reconsider an underground reservoir for the park, which would operate much like an underwater holding tank. They want him to ask council to reconsider this option.

Fellus is one of a group of residents who have concerns about the dry pond option, including: that it would decrease property values, cause safety issues, as well as lead to more mosquitoes and contamination.

Fellus has spoken with four municipal and environmental lawyers who have told her property values in the area would go down if the dry pond is introduced, she said.

She is also concerned a build-up of water will be hazardous to the safety of the children who walk through or use the park.

Supportive of the city plan, the dry pond is more effective and will perform better than the underground tank, says Jack Graziosi, Vaughan’s director of engineering services. Most of the time, the pond area will be dry, he said.

Shefman points out that after a major storm, the pond would only hold water for about four hours. But Fellus says she is worried the water could sit there for as much as 24 to 48 hours.

Shefman says the city needs to look at facts.

“All we have to depend on, rather than someone’s opinion or perception, is engineering science where the experts do studies, conduct analyses, consult with others and ultimately provide their very best advice,” Shefman said. “Yes, in fact the water may remain in the ponds for more than four hours after a 100-year storm. But it is just as likely it will remain for only three hours.”

Fellus suggests an official plan revision is necessary, since the park would be so drastically changed under the dry pond solution.

The centre core will have a passive use, the ground’s elevation will change and there will be more gullies (ditches), she said.

“We will lose an area where kids run, where you play with your kid, toboggan hills. There will be culverts,” Fellus said.

She started a petition in favour of the underground reservoir option, which has close to 300 signatures. It is available for signing at the Gallanough resource centre.

Shefman pointed out the price difference between a dry pond versus an underground reservoir is $3 to $4 million.

“For the City of Vaughan, that is an enormous amount of money,” he said.

The dry pond would cost an estimated $1 million versus an estimated $5 million for an underground system.

Fellus said she would be fine with paying more for what she believes is a better solution.

Shefman pointed out the underground option would take one year to build and during this time, the park would be out of commission whereas with the dry pond option, construction is scheduled for late fall and the park could be used by summer 2015.