04-05-2017, 01:35 PM
(04-05-2017, 07:21 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(04-04-2017, 10:01 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Yes, this really belongs in a different thread. But I don’t really understand what you’re saying, in light of what I recall from the plan. My recollection is that the plan calls for a bicycle trail immediately next to the ION fence, then a line of trees, then a pedestrian path, with each path being 4m in width. OK, maybe there isn’t room between the fence and the existing line of trees for a 4m path, but clearly there is room for, say, a 3.5m path, because there is one there now. So just pave that. Then pave a pedestrian path on the other side of the existing line of trees.
You do misunderstand what I am saying, I will clarify.
There is plenty of room on the west side of the line of trees between the trees and the LRT fence. Probably 5 meters or more. Enough room for one wide trail, but not separated trails.
The problem is the east side of the line of trees, between the trees and the farmstead where the animals are kept. Obviously, the fence would need to be moved, and the farmstead would be shrunk far more than it would be by moving the trees. But the bigger problem is the two buildings that are in the way of the trail. These buildings are part of the farmstead, and must be inside the fence, but would obstruct your path.
In the end, they are fairly small trees. The philosophy of "compromising" on standards is not a straight forward one, and a more interesting conversation for another place.
Thanks, I think I see what you’re saying. I think I’m making some assumptions about what is about to happen. I guess we’ll see. I reserve the right to be confirmed in my irritation if the new line of trees is planted less than, say, 1m from where the existing line is. But if it moves over significantly than I may have to admit the plan actually does make sense.