Residents express their unhappiness with new development

The first public meeting regarding the environmental and social impact of the proposed development of a part of the historic Meyer Farm, the developers refer to as Reading Junxion, erupted into chaos.

Residents expressed their extreme dissatisfaction with the proposed development at the meeting which took place in the packed Reading Country Club hall on February 6.

The meeting started off with the developers indicating what their intended purpose for the area was, but this soon broke down as residents started asking their questions regarding the development.

A proposed layout and footprint was shown that was laid down nearly a decade ago when the plans for the development was initially laid before council.

This indicated a low density Equestrian Estate.

When asked by the residents what the plans are now they were answered that there are several options being looked at but that the primary plan was for a mixed development featuring residential, business, hospital and school buildings.

Residents asked why there was such a delay regarding the initial planning, and now they were informed that there was an ongoing court case followed by appeals that led to the matter being sub judice.

A dispute followed regarding the outcome of this court case with the developers, stating that the developers were in control of the land and the residents saying the matter only regarded the rezoning of the plot of land.

The developers acknowledged that they have already received several notices and concerns from interested parties that could span several pages.

These included, but were not limited to, the impact on the wildlife of the area, specifically the Verreaux’s eagles, the historic value of the property and the concerns regarding the access to area.

These concerns were raised again loudly by the residents, and the developers stated that at this point they were unable to answer all the questions but will look into it as that is the purpose of the initial public meeting.

When asked, they indicated that they will have at least three public meetings and, if necessary, with specifically affected parties.

Other concerns raised by residents was safety, the already overfull schools in the area and the livelihood of those currently working on the property.

The question of whether the land will be sold was brought up and many residents called out that the answers given were not satisfactory.

The local councillor and other residents asked that it be noted that the signatures taken on the attendance not be used to say that those attending were for the development.

Readers must please note that this is a developing story and the RECORD will follow up with further investigation regarding the previous legal case and the developments to come.