Curly.- On Wednesday, June 5, prior to the ordinary session of the Deliberative Council, the councilors of both blocks received a group of residents of Parque del Lago who are mobilizing against the installation of a 7-a-side soccer field, an activity that is not authorized in the zone by the Municipal Land Use and Occupation Code, but which was approved by way of exception.
With the signature of more than thirty people, a note had been prepared stating the claim to the municipal authorities.
Soccer field 7
In the session of April 17, ordinance 7/24 was approved, which granted by way of exception the permission to use a property located on María Segovia Street, between Marcos Lafferrara and René Favaloro, to install a private sports venture: soccer field 7 with additional facilities, such as bathrooms, canteen with steakhouses, area for tables and chairs. In the arguments for granting approval, it is noted that the rectangular property of one thousand square meters (25 by 40 meters) is located “in a residential area with a low occupancy rate to date.” It is added in the recitals that “it is essential that once in operation it must respect the rest hours of the neighborhood, avoiding annoying noises, non-compliance being a cause for expiration of the use permit.” The permit was extended for 24 months “and may be revoked in the event that the Municipality finds irregularities or non-compliance detailed in the recitals.”
Counterarguments
In the note submitted to the Deliberative Council, the neighbors opposed to the installation of the project argue:
• The use is not authorized in the area of its location, which is predominantly residential;
• Important investments are made “that suggest a permanent installation”, which will lead to “a number of conflictive situations both for the neighbors and for good urban development, which is what is sought in the pertinent ordinance”;
• Problems that neighbors foresee: parking problems, annoying noises, concentration in meetings related to sports activities.
• It would be “absolutely negative for the neighbors if authorization were requested to close it.”
The neighbors add that all the inconveniences they foresee would bring “as a consequence a depreciation of the surrounding properties as well as a decrease in the quality of life and the tranquility of the neighborhood.”
The councilors did not give a definitive response to the proposals, but decided to re-read the current regulations within the framework of the Municipal Planning Commission, which has jurisdiction over this type of issues.
