|
|
Post by southsidemom on Mar 20, 2008 11:25:28 GMT -6
Is it possible to switch our 25 acres at BB for the remainder of AME's? Just thinking out loud, trying to figure out where/why this rumor is around about AME selling the remainder of their land. Unless Pastor is scaling back, not large enough parcel at BB. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Mar 20, 2008 11:28:56 GMT -6
Is 25 acres enough for a church & parking lot? I forgot - does AME have 27 or 37 acres they are holding on to? Holding on to between 37 and 51 based on different numbers I hear for original amount owned |
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Mar 20, 2008 12:13:15 GMT -6
Does anyone have an opinion of what would happen if MWGEN pulls out? If we do not buy land from them then they would not be required to do any remediation. Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 20, 2008 12:27:03 GMT -6
Does anyone have an opinion of what would happen if MWGEN pulls out? If we do not buy land from them then they would not be required to do any remediation. Is that correct? I think it becomes an interesting issue in that we are not building on that land then, HOWEVER, it is the land next to the school. i.e. those who yelled we could notlook at the land further southbecause there is a land fill near there - we weren't of course going to build on it, but it was right next door. So the subject of groundwater contamination, residual effects etc. come into play. that would be my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 20, 2008 12:43:40 GMT -6
Is 25 acres enough for a church & parking lot? I forgot - does AME have 27 or 37 acres they are holding on to? Holding on to between 37 and 51 based on different numbers I hear for original amount owned According to land report: 86.57 acres total for the HS St. John 49.1 / MWGEN 37.47 ipsdweb.ipsd.org/News.aspx?id=17229"Land Report for the Board" According to the site selection report St. John's "buildable" acreage is just under 80 acres but it's unclear if that includes 9 wetland acres. So anywhere from 30.9 to 40-ish is what St. J kept. I'm thinking closer to 40 since we got stuck with the wetlands. And the contamination. And the EMF. |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 20, 2008 13:00:26 GMT -6
Does anyone have an opinion of what would happen if MWGEN pulls out? If we do not buy land from them then they would not be required to do any remediation. Is that correct? I think it gives the perception the district is trying to be responsive to concerns. I think it does take the remediation off the table. I can't speak to proximity between the two sites going forward or the other named concerns. Although as far as ground water goes I will say the same thing I said before. I think these locations are connected to Lake Michigan not wells. But I could be wrong. I am just trying to play devils advocate here. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 20, 2008 13:08:00 GMT -6
Does anyone have an opinion of what would happen if MWGEN pulls out? If we do not buy land from them then they would not be required to do any remediation. Is that correct? I think it gives the perception the district is trying to be responsive to concerns. I think it does take the remediation off the table. I can't speak to proximity between the two sites going forward or the other named concerns. Although as far as ground water goes I will say the same thing I said before. I think these locations are connected to Lake Michigan not wells. But I could be wrong. I am just trying to play devils advocate here. yeah, I don't know about ground water either - just threw it out there as most people here ( including myself) dismissed the new property further south because it was NEXT to , not ON , a piece of property most would consider a conern some would say we are against the AME site only - I would be against any site where the concerns appear to be that significant. Yes the commute to AME is lousy for my area - but it is but one issue - not the only by any stretch. And if they moved Watts to WVHS - I would be thrilled for my area- but still would be against the AME site for 204. Just trying to be clear |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 20, 2008 13:51:51 GMT -6
There was discussion about using wells for irrigation on the fields (From the Aurora planning committee notes). I do not know what the resolution of that was; if City of Aurora would provide city water for that or if there would be 'from ground' irrigation going on.
Even next door, the pipelines remain and are still traveling THROUGH the property and anything that plant spit out that settled into the soil will be there too just because of the size of the land-fallout from the emissions of the turbines over the years.
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 20, 2008 15:43:01 GMT -6
Does anyone have an opinion of what would happen if MWGEN pulls out? If we do not buy land from them then they would not be required to do any remediation. Is that correct? I think it gives the perception the district is trying to be responsive to concerns. I think it does take the remediation off the table. I can't speak to proximity between the two sites going forward or the other named concerns. Although as far as ground water goes I will say the same thing I said before. I think these locations are connected to Lake Michigan not wells. But I could be wrong. I am just trying to play devils advocate here. AME sight is definitely on well. It's a rural address. Aurora supplies the water in the area and in order to get Aurora's water, you must annex to the city. I can't speak for MWGEN. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 20, 2008 15:53:08 GMT -6
Aurora officials expected to annex Eola school site
March 19, 2008
By Dan Campana The Beacon News
AURORA -- The City Council appears poised to give the OK next week for plans to build the area's newest high school.
Aside from brief mention of parking capacity at the proposed Metea Valley High School, aldermen on Tuesday had very little to say about the project that has generated much controversy and a lawsuit within the Indian Prairie School District.
The school and a new location for St. John African Methodist Episcopal Church are to share about 122 acres on Eola Road, south of Diehl Road, with a main entrance for both planned at Molitor Road.
A public hearing is slated for the City Council's March 25 meeting, where aldermen are expected to vote to annex the land into the city, as well as approve preliminary plan design.
District officials, who said the school board is expected to vote on similar items Monday, provided a glimpse at Metea's campus layout. As planned, there would be 950 student parking spaces near a north entrance, attorney Rick Petesch said, noting the district and church are in talks about overflow parking on school days.
Alderman Lynda Elmore said the city would act to restrict parking in the Cambridge Chase subdivision if students began to park there.
The school, occupying 86.5 acres, will have a capacity of 3,000 students, with only freshmen and sophomores when the doors open, though it is not expected to reach capacity in the next five years, officials said.
Though the district targets an April 1 ground breaking, an ongoing lawsuit in DuPage County seeks to prevent construction on Eola because of environmental concerns from a nearby electric plant and underground gas pipes. The lawsuit contends the district previously ruled the Eola site unsuitable for a school and must purchase property known as Brach-Brodie.
Metea Valley's campus stretches roughly from the Illinois Prairie Path to Molitor, and St. John, Aurora's oldest African-American church, encompasses the remaining land south up to the subdivision. The 65,000-square-foot church would be built in the first phase, with a fitness and meeting center following.
Sun-Times News Group
|
|
