Project rendering published by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and Mentana Group. For illustrative purposes.
Project rendering published by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and Mentana Group. For illustrative purposes.
The question is not whether Stouffville needs recreation.
The question is whether an approximately 45-metre / 148-foot-high privately operated complex with roughly 453 parking spaces is appropriate beside Ballantrae Public School and established homes — and whether the Town has adequately demonstrated that its impacts can be managed before full construction proceeds.
Note: The September 2026 Technical Mitigation Plan specifies a maximum height of 45 metres. An earlier announcement by the project's architect, ZAS Architects, identified the height as 47 metres (154 feet). Clarification is being sought regarding the discrepancy and the maximum height shown on the current building-permit drawings.
The proposed dome is approximately:
44-metres / 148-feet high
The proposal also includes a clubhouse, approximately 453 parking spaces and a large indoor recreational operation.
This is not simply another community building.
A structure of this scale would be dramatically different from the existing built environment in Ballantrae.
Residents want to understand how the Town concluded that this scale is compatible with a community whose planning policies specifically emphasize rural character and village scale.
Residents want the Town to demonstrate why a structure approximately 148 feet high is appropriate for this location and how its scale is compatible with the surrounding community.
The Ballantrae-Musselman’s Lake Secondary Plan remains applicable.
It contains policies dealing with matters such as:
• rural character and village scale
• compatibility with neighbouring development
• institutional uses
• servicing
• groundwater and environmental protection
• transportation
• stormwater management
Residents are not claiming that a legal violation has already been proven.
We are asking the Town to demonstrate how the current proposal conforms with the applicable Secondary Plan policies.
You can read the Secondary Plan here:
Ballantrae-Musselman’s Lake Secondary Plan
https://www.townofws.ca/media/rw5jf32j/ws-official-plan_april-2025-consolidation-section-11.pdf
The fact that the Town believes the dome is exempt from a normal zoning height restriction does not answer the separate question of whether a structure of this scale is appropriate and compatible with Ballantrae’s planning framework.
Residents want the Town to provide a clear planning analysis demonstrating how the current proposal conforms with the applicable Secondary Plan policies relating to rural character, village scale, compatibility, servicing and environmental protection.
The Town has advised that the project did not require a conventional Planning Act application.
That means there was no normal statutory Planning Act public meeting and no conventional site-plan process for the current proposal.
A project can follow a different legal approval route and still have major effects on its neighbours.
Residents believe that when the conventional planning process is not used, transparency and meaningful public consultation become even more important.
Residents want meaningful public consultation before full construction proceeds and access to the technical information being relied upon by the Town.
The Town has confirmed that partial permit PRNMU20250638 was issued in April 2026 for foundation work.
The Town says this permit authorizes foundation work only and does not authorize construction of the entire project.
Several important technical matters remain outstanding or under review.
Residents want to understand what must be resolved before additional construction is authorized and to ensure that early construction does not make meaningful reconsideration impractical later.
Residents want the Town to clearly identify:
• what work is currently authorized
• what work is not yet authorized
• which studies and approvals must be completed before additional construction proceeds
• what safeguards exist to ensure unresolved technical matters can still meaningfully affect the final design
The Town has advised that construction is anticipated to take approximately eight months.
The Town has also stated that:
• construction days and hours must comply with the Town’s Noise By-law
• no construction-noise exemption had been approved when residents last inquired
• construction access has been identified on the west portion of the property
• mitigation measures will be required to reduce impacts on neighbouring properties
Eight months of construction could involve:
• heavy trucks
• excavation
• dust
• noise
• vibration
• increased traffic
• mud and debris on local roads
• temporary drainage disruption
• impacts near Ballantrae Public School
Nearby residents and the school community may experience these effects well before the facility begins operating.
Residents want clear information about:
• permitted construction hours
• truck routes
• dust-control measures
• vibration monitoring
• construction noise
• drainage protection
• road-cleaning requirements
• school-safety measures
• how complaints will be received and addressed
The complex would be immediately beside Ballantrae Public School.
York Region has advised that a Transportation Mobility Plan is required.
That analysis is expected to consider matters including:
• existing traffic
• school traffic
• future background growth
• traffic generated by the complex
• intersection delays and queues
• signal warrants
• possible road improvements
The concern is not simply inconvenience.
It involves:
children walking and cycling, school buses, parent drop-off and pick-up, intersection safety, emergency access and traffic spilling onto residential roads.
The facility may also attract users from outside Ballantrae, particularly for tournaments and larger events.
Residents want the completed transportation analysis available before full construction proceeds and want confirmation that school traffic and surrounding residential roads have been properly considered.
The Town has indicated that municipal water would be available and that on-site wells could potentially provide supplementary water.
York Region advised residents that the Functional Servicing Report had not yet been submitted when it responded.
Before a facility of this scale proceeds, residents want to know:
• how much water it will require
• whether sufficient municipal capacity actually exists
• whether water has been specifically allocated to the project
• whether wells will be required
• whether well use could affect groundwater
• how fire-suppression water will be provided
This is especially important in an area where water supply and groundwater have historically been significant planning considerations.
Residents want the Town to demonstrate that adequate water capacity exists and explain what role, if any, on-site wells will play.
Residents have not yet been given a clear final explanation of how wastewater from the completed facility will be handled.
A large recreational facility can generate substantial wastewater.
The servicing system must have adequate capacity and appropriate approvals.
Residents want the Town to identify:
• the final wastewater servicing system
• available capacity
• who owns and operates the system
• what approvals are required
• whether infrastructure upgrades are necessary
• what happens if the preferred servicing solution proves inadequate
The development would add a very large amount of hard surface through:
• the dome roof
• clubhouse
• approximately 453 parking spaces
• access roads and other paved surfaces
Natural ground absorbs some rainfall.
Roofs and asphalt do not.
Water therefore runs off these surfaces faster and must be collected, controlled and safely discharged.
Residents have already observed local roadside ditches containing substantial amounts of standing water, and some nearby residents have experienced basement flooding or other drainage problems.
Potentially, yes — if the stormwater system is inadequately designed, if downstream drainage is already constrained, or if groundwater conditions are not properly taken into account.
A properly engineered system should prevent unacceptable additional impacts.
That is precisely why residents want the Town to demonstrate that the design incorporates:
• existing ditch capacity
• known basement-flooding history
• downstream drainage
• seasonal groundwater
• major rainfall events
• snowmelt
• cumulative development
and that post-development runoff will not increase flooding risk to neighbouring properties.
Existing photographs and observations of full ditches should be considered as evidence of current conditions.
Where drainage and basement-flooding problems already exist, even relatively small changes in runoff, groundwater or downstream capacity can matter to nearby homeowners.
Residents want the Town to demonstrate that existing flooding and drainage conditions have been incorporated into the engineering analysis and that the project will not worsen flooding risk to surrounding properties.
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) is the conservation authority serving the Lake Simcoe watershed.
Among its functions, LSRCA provides municipalities with technical expertise relating to matters such as:
• flooding and erosion
• stormwater
• groundwater
• hydrogeology
• water balance
• natural systems and watershed impacts
LSRCA also undertakes technical planning reviews for partner municipalities when development applications are circulated to it.
Residents contacted LSRCA directly.
LSRCA confirmed that:
• the current proposal was not circulated to it
• LSRCA has not reviewed the project
• LSRCA has provided no comments or conditions
• the property is not in an area requiring an LSRCA Conservation Authorities Act permit
LSRCA also explained that where it is not participating in the review, the Town is responsible as approval authority for ensuring applicable legislative obligations have been met.
York Region previously advised residents that water-balance and hydrogeological review falls within LSRCA’s area of responsibility.
Because LSRCA has not reviewed this project, residents want to know who is performing that technical review instead.
Residents want straightforward answers to two questions:
If LSRCA is not reviewing the project’s hydrogeology and water balance, who is?
and
What standards and policies are being applied?
The Town has confirmed that no visual-impact assessment was undertaken.
For a structure approximately 148 feet high, visual impact is not a minor issue.
Residents want to understand how the structure would appear from:
• neighbouring homes
• Aurora Road
• Ballantrae Public School
• surrounding rural lands
• other parts of Ballantrae
A project can satisfy a technical zoning interpretation while still having a profound effect on the appearance and character of a community.
Residents want the Town to demonstrate how the visual impact of a structure of this height has been considered in relation to Ballantrae’s rural character and village scale.
The Town has advised that a lighting/photometric plan is part of the review process.
Final operating hours have not yet been provided to residents.
Residents are concerned not only about whether individual light fixtures meet property-line standards, but also about the cumulative light pollution created by:
• parking-lot lighting
• exterior building lighting
• light trespass onto neighbouring properties
• possible illumination or glow from the dome itself
• nighttime sky glow
• extended evening operating hours
A large sports facility may be busiest during evenings and weekends, precisely when nearby residents are most likely to be at home.
Residents want the Town to demonstrate how light pollution will be controlled and how neighbouring homes will be protected from excessive nighttime lighting.
The Town has confirmed that construction must comply with the Town’s Noise By-law and that no construction-noise exemption had been approved when residents last inquired.
Residents have not yet been provided with a completed operational noise assessment demonstrating anticipated noise levels at neighbouring properties or at Ballantrae Public School.
Potential noise sources may include:
• mechanical and ventilation equipment
• blower and other systems used to maintain the air-supported dome
• vehicles and parking activity
• tournaments and events
• deliveries and waste collection
• maintenance equipment
• emergency or backup-power equipment
• periodic testing of backup generators
Noise is not limited to activity inside the dome.
Nearby residents should know what noise they can expect during evenings, weekends and nighttime hours, and what limits and mitigation measures will apply.
The proposed complex is also immediately beside Ballantrae Public School. Ontario’s environmental noise guidance recognizes educational facilities as noise-sensitive uses and specifically identifies classrooms as noise-sensitive spaces.
Background noise can interfere with speech intelligibility, concentration and learning. The World Health Organization recommends classroom background noise below 35 dBA to support good teaching and learning conditions.
This makes it important to understand not only peak noise levels, but also the potential effect of ongoing or repetitive mechanical noise during the school day, including noise from dome systems, HVAC equipment, traffic and any backup-power equipment.
If generators or other backup systems are required, their operation and periodic testing should also be considered.
Residents want the Town to demonstrate, through an appropriate acoustic assessment, that anticipated operational noise has been evaluated at both neighbouring residential properties and Ballantrae Public School.
The assessment should consider the school grounds, outdoor play areas, building façade and, where appropriate, potential indoor classroom impacts, as well as normal operations, events and emergency or backup equipment.
Residents are asking that any necessary noise-control and mitigation measures be identified before the facility becomes operational.
An air-supported structure depends upon mechanical systems to remain inflated.
The Town has indicated that fire and life-safety matters remain subject to Building Code and Fire review and that supplementary water storage may be needed for fire protection.
The Town has not yet provided residents with details of the proposed backup-power system.
Residents want appropriate professionals to confirm:
• backup power and system redundancy
• operation during power failure
• snow and wind performance
• evacuation procedures
• fire-water supply
• emergency routes
• occupancy limits
• access for emergency vehicles
Because the dome depends on powered mechanical systems, residents also want to know what happens during an electrical outage.
If diesel or other generators are proposed, residents want information about:
• generator location
• size
• fuel source
• operating and testing schedule
• noise levels
• emissions
particularly given the proximity of surrounding homes.
This is not a claim that the dome is unsafe.
It is a request for transparent confirmation that a structure of this size can operate safely under foreseeable emergency conditions.
Residents want the Town to provide clear information regarding the backup-power, fire-protection and emergency systems before the facility becomes operational.
The land belongs to the Town.
Mentana will own the capital improvements during the lease and operate the facility.
Private participation in municipal recreation is not inherently inappropriate and may reduce financial and operating risk for taxpayers.
However, the scale of the project is being justified partly by its public recreational benefit.
The Town has advised that designated local sports organizations will receive below-market rates and that the Town will receive some dedicated programming time.
Residents want to understand:
• how much facility time will actually go to Stouffville residents
• how much will be tournament, regional or commercial use
• what “below-market” rates mean in practice
• how much Town programming is guaranteed
• how the Town will enforce community-access commitments
• what happens if the private operator cannot continue
• what happens to the improvements at the end of the lease
The relevant question is not simply public versus private.
It is whether the public benefit is sufficient and transparent enough to justify the use of public land and the impacts of a project of this magnitude.
Residents want the Town to clearly demonstrate the public benefit that supports a privately operated facility of this scale on Town-owned land.
The Town has provided residents with useful information including:
• the Public Service Facility position
• the Municipal Capital Facility designation
• the private operating arrangement
• the partial foundation permit
• some servicing assumptions
• anticipated construction timing of approximately eight months
• confirmation that some technical reviews remain underway
York Region has also provided information regarding traffic and servicing review.
LSRCA has clarified that it has not reviewed the current proposal.
We appreciate those responses.
Residents have not yet been shown:
• an accepted Transportation Mobility Plan
• a completed Functional Servicing Report establishing project demand and capacity
• the final wastewater solution
• final stormwater and drainage analysis
• who is reviewing hydrogeology/water balance in LSRCA’s absence
• a visual-impact assessment
• final lighting information and operating hours
• a completed operational noise assessment
• final fire/life-safety arrangements
• Hydro One capacity information
• details of backup-power requirements
• a clear Secondary Plan conformity analysis
• detailed local-versus-regional usage expectations
• the complete set of technical studies and agency comments supporting final approval
Some of these documents may still be underway.
That is the point.
The original project was conceived partly to address recreational needs following the loss of Soccer City.
Since then, the Town has acquired Simeon Park, a 95-acre recreational property with existing recreational amenities and significant open space.
Simeon Park does not itself replace indoor recreation.
But Stouffville’s overall recreational assets have changed.
Before committing Ballantrae to a development of this magnitude, residents believe it is reasonable to reassess:
• current recreational demand
• current facility use
• geographic distribution of recreation
• alternative locations
• future municipal investments
• whether a smaller facility would satisfy community needs
Residents want the Town to reconsider whether a facility of this size remains necessary at this location in light of Stouffville’s evolving recreational assets and future needs.
We are asking the Town to:
Finish the outstanding traffic, servicing, stormwater, water, wastewater, environmental, lighting, noise and safety reviews.
Explain clearly how the proposal conforms with the applicable Ballantrae-Musselman’s Lake Secondary Plan policies.
Demonstrate that drainage, groundwater, lighting, noise, traffic and other impacts will not create unacceptable effects on surrounding residents.
Make relevant technical studies, plans and agency comments available to the community to the greatest extent permitted by law.
Hold a meaningful public meeting after the technical information is available and before full construction proceeds.
Determine whether a 45-metre / 148-foot facility with approximately 453 parking spaces is truly necessary at this location.
If the current scale cannot be demonstrated to be appropriate for Ballantrae, pursue a smaller, community-focused recreational facility.
We want good recreational opportunities for Stouffville.
The question is:
Residents believe a major development on publicly owned land should:
respect Ballantrae’s planning framework, be supported by completed technical evidence, protect neighbouring properties, provide demonstrable public benefit and involve meaningful community consultation.
If you agree, please learn more and consider supporting the resident petition.
Resident-led. Non-partisan. Focused on responsible recreation and responsible development.