Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0

Opening Remarks

1.1

Mayor’s Address, Joanne Ross-Zuj

1.2

MP’s Address, Michael Chong

1.3

Deryk Smith, Chairman, Greenlands Centre Wellington

2.0

Presentations

2.1

Presentation: Greenlands Centre Wellington, Erik Coleman

2.2

Key Note Speaker: Designing Our Future Community, Sean Kelly

2.3

Table Top Presentations

3.0

Activities and Outcomes

3.1

Activity 1 - Township On The Wall

3.2

Activity 2 - A Day In The Life

3.3

Activity 3 - Defining Opportunity And Constraints

3.4

Activity 4 - Guiding Principles: Connections

3.5

Activity 5 - Guiding Principles: Places For....

3.6

Final Activity - Priority Voting/Closing the Workshop

3.7

Participant Table Results

4.0

Mapping Summary - Composite Maps

4.1

Opportunities and Constraints Map

4.2

Connections and Corridors Map

4.3

Places For.... Map

5.0

Appendices

5.1

Participants

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

i


1.0 Opening Remarks 1.1 Mayor Joanne Ross-Zuj - Address Thank you for extending an invitation to this workshop for myself and the Council of Centre Wellington. It is indeed comforting to see so many people here today who are sincerely concerned about the green spaces that are present in our community. The Province of Ontario has created a Greenbelt around the Golden Horseshoe and we can anticipate more growth being directed to the County of Wellington. Centre Wellington being the urban centre would be expected to accommodate this growth and we as a community must plan for this impact. A careful look at both our green infrastructure is just as important as the gray infrastructure. It is connecting of these two components that are needed to sustain the future growth of our community. We are experiencing a shift in our planning process. In Centre Wellington we are working on Urban Design Guidelines that will give us considerable input into the look of our neighborhoods. The intensity of infilling will be an adjustment that will prevent the sprawl concept of development and protect more of our surrounding spaces. The environment will not be considered a trade off for economic activity but a contributor to economic success. In a recent survey by the Canadian Urban Institute and the Natural Spaces Leadership Alliance most Canadians are satisfied with the amount of land being set aside for parks but very dissatisfied with the steps being taken to protect natural ecosystems. This suggests that finally there is recognition of a land ethic that values our natural assets and no longer views nature as islands of green. Greenlands and all of the participants in the workshop do have that respect for our environment and it is from forums like the one happening here today that we listen, discuss and share attitudes that shift the direction in our planning process. On behalf of Council and myself I welcome everyone participating today and a huge thank you to Greenlands Centre Wellington for bringing us all together.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

1


1.2 M.P Michael Chong - Address The Urgency of Stopping Urban Sprawl Over the past number of years, concern over the environment has been top of mind for Canadians. Yet the focus is often on the symptoms, rather than the root causes, of environment degradation. One of the fundamental causes of environmental degradation in Canada is urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is destroying thousands of acres of habitat for flora and fauna. Wellington and Halton alone are home to over a dozen species at risk of complete extinction from the planet, including species such as the Great Egret, the Jefferson Salamander and the Green Snake. All are at risk of extinction in Wellington and Halton due to habitat loss, most of it caused by urban sprawl. Most of this sprawl is taking place in the Carolinian forest zone, an area with the highest bio-density in Canada and in this country found only in Southern Ontario. While farmland is not native wilderness, along its windrows and forest cover it nevertheless provides much habitat for a wide variety of species. Furthermore, farmland is one generation away from wilderness. Left fallow, it reverts back to its natural state in thirty or forty years, but land paved under will never go back to its natural state. In addition, there are signs that the Great Lakes – containing almost 20% of the world’s freshwater – are under threat from urban sprawl. The water levels in all five Great Lakes are below long-term averages and some are at record lows. Lake Ontario alone is nearly seven inches below levels of a year ago. All this growth is draining our aquifers and destroying our watersheds. Indeed, the biggest threat to the Great Lakes may come not from pressures to divert water to the dry American Southwest, but rather from explosive urban growth in Ontario. Perhaps the strongest environmental argument against sprawl is the global threat presented by rising greenhouse gas emissions. In destroying this farmland, in creating this sprawl, we are constructing a high-carbon infrastructure system of highways and sprawling communities that will not only prevent us from reducing our greenhouse gasses, but will in fact ensure we only increase them. Urban sprawl also represents a serous threat to our food supply. We are destroying much of the prime farmland needed to grow our own food. While much of the food eaten today is imported and while much of farming is unprofitable, we cannot let the short-term economic problems in agriculture cloud our judgement about the long-term. Nothing is more vital to our longterm national interest than the ability to produce our own basic food supply. Good farmland, good soil, good climate and consistent rainfall are needed to do that, precisely what we have in southern Ontario. We cannot assume the long-term security of our imported food supply; let us remember that only 60 years ago Western Europe - one of the world’s great breadbaskets – faced starvation. A disruption to imported foodstuffs would be devastating; Cuba has survived five decades without American automobiles, but would not survive a month without food.

Designing Our Future Community 2


If the environmental arguments remain unconvincing, then certainly the harsh economic reality must be faced. Over the last fifty years we have built infrastructure system of highways and sprawling communities that we cannot afford to maintain. There have been major bridge collapses in Montreal and Minneapolis. Closer to home, dozens of bridges and roads are in need of replacement. Even with record government revenues from one of the greatest periods of economic growth, there is simply not enough money to maintain all this infrastructure. As a result, property taxes continue to march upward. And the reasons why property taxes are rising more rapidly in places like Mississauga than Toronto or Halton are simple. Statistics Canada’s latest 2006 census results show that the city of Toronto has a population density of almost 4,000 persons per km2, while the corresponding number for Mississauga is 2,300. In other words, the ability of a city like Mississauga, built on low density sprawl, to raise property taxes from its population base is only half of that of Toronto. Another reason is that municipalities have been prevented by the province from charging developers the full cost of development. One study of an Ontario town found that for every dollar in development charges collected, a $1.40 in services were put in. Guess where the other 40 cents are coming from? From existing ratepayers, who are, in effect, subsidizing development. More growth means rising property taxes. In addition, this infrastructure system of highways and sprawling communities were all built during that half-century period when oil was cheap. Oil has just broken through the $100 a barrel barrier. What happens to sprawling suburbia and the commuter lifestyle when oil reaches $200 a barrel and gas reaches $3 a litre? Clearly, urban sprawl is not economically sustainable. In some ways, the most important argument against urban sprawl is that we are destroying what is most beautiful and what we cannot ever re-create: the land. The land has influenced our culture and imbued our sense of identity. How can one read and understand Archibald Lampman, Margaret Atwood, Ross Sinclair, Robertson Davies, Michael Ondaatje, or any of the other greats of Canadian literature if one has no connection to the land? If one has never seen the undulating hills of Wellington County, or the vastness of the PeelHalton plain, once the breadbasket of Ontario, how can one understand what is means to be Canadian? The land in which we live is intrinsically tied to who we are as Canadians. The way we treat it is a reflection of who we are as a people. So what can be done? At a basic level, there are two solutions – adopt a zero population growth policy or significantly overhaul urban and transit planning. The first solution, zero population growth, does not entail zero economic growth. Environmentalists, like Pulitzer Prize winner Jared Diamond, have pointed this out and Scandinavian countries are evidence of this fact. In Canada, we have a below replacement birth rate but a growing population due to immigration. Since our birth rate is below replacement, Canada needs immigration to maintain population levels. A zero population growth policy would entail adjusting immigrations rates so a constant population level of about 33 million is maintained. Levels of immigration could be adjusted regularly to meet this goal, and as demographics change, immigration rates would be adjusted up or down to maintain this constant population. However, at this juncture, there appears little appetite to reduce population growth rates. Since there is little appetite to reduce our population growth, the only other solution – one which allows for population growth while minimizing environmental damage – is to overhaul urban and transit planning. In other

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

3


words, we need to ensure that the vast majority of any additional population growth is absorbed within the existing built up urban areas in the GTA, while committing billions from provincial and federal governments for public transit. Cities like Toronto and Mississauga will have to significantly increase their populations, while undertaking significant expansions of public transit systems. This will result in higher populations and densities in cities like Toronto and Mississauga, an easing in the flow of commuters and goods, and in turn, an end to sprawl. But it requires a major rethink of urban planning and massive investments in public transit. These increases in densities and populations are required to provide the level of transit ridership needed to justify the operational costs of major dedicated right-of-way public transit systems. These transit systems do not come without a price. Tens of billions in public monies would be required to build the kind of public transit system needed to move people and goods around these denser cities. This level of investment is beyond municipal means and would require commitments from both federal and provincial governments. But the alternative – more sprawl – comes with an even higher price. A denser population does not necessarily require turning these cities into Le Corbusier’s canyon of towering skyscrapers, where entire neighbourhoods are levelled to make way for forty story condo towers, as was done in the building of post-war St. James Town in Toronto. These increases in population can be accommodated by building five to eight story densities along major transit corridors throughout the city, along streets like Yonge and Bloor in Toronto or Eglinton and Hurontario in Mississauga. Either way – 40 story condos in the core of the city or five to eight story structures throughout the city – these cities would be the better city for it. Pursuing intensification by building skyscrapers would create downtown cores of Manhattan-like density, not necessarily a bad thing. Manhattan is an eminently liveable and exciting city. Alternatively, pursuing intensification with five to eight story densities would create cities more akin to London or Paris, also eminently liveable. Either one of these two approaches – skyscrapers in the core or consistent five to eight story density along major corridors – is viable. But what is not viable is building more single unit, tract housing on agricultural lands. The era of building tract housing must come to an end if we are ever to tackle our environmental and economic challenges. What happens in Toronto and Mississauga will have a profound impact on us in Wellington County. Some have suggested that an alternative to the “command-and-control approach” of urban and transit planning is to use “market forces” to achieve the same goal of halting urban sprawl. This alternative is the increasingly talked about “carbon tax”, essentially a tax on fuel and energy. This carbon tax would have to be priced high enough to effect change and have an impact. Many argue that the additional tax revenues produced by a carbon tax could be used to reduce personal income taxes, as well as taxes on savings and investments (i.e. capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, taxes on interest earnings, etc.). In addition to the environmental benefit of stopping sprawl, this would also produce an economic benefit: Productivity and wages would increase, ceteris paribus. Reducing taxes on savings and investments would lead to increased inflows into the capital markets. This means an increase in capital available for companies to invest in plant and equipment, which in turn means increases in productivity and wages. So why haven’t we moved aggressively to implement the eminently reasonable solutions suggested above? It is in part because we live in a cultural milieu where the ideal of a two-car garage and backyard for everyone

Designing Our Future Community 4


remains dominant. Everyone deserves a backyard, it is said. But having a backyard for every family and for the more than 3 million additional people expected to arrive in the Greater Golden Horseshoe over the next 20 years is simply not environmentally nor economically compatible. It’s not compatible with protecting endangered species, saving the Great Lakes, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and maintaining our prime agricultural lands. Furthermore, it would saddle future generations with the millstone of a sprawling infrastructure system they could ill afford to maintain. We don’t have a lot of land. This seems a ridiculous statement to make, until one realizes that much of Canada is inhospitable to human habitation. That’s why we have almost 20 million Canadians crammed into the St. Lawrence Lowlands of Ontario and Quebec. Others argue that halting sprawl and creating denser communities would result in more expensive housing. This is true if one is committed to the idea that every family deserves to live in a single-detached home on a large lot. However, families can and do live comfortably in multi-storey buildings across much of Europe and Asia. A condo-townhouse along a public transit corridor costs just as much as single detached home on a larger lot. Arguably, these denser communities - a good mix of residential and commercial supported by public transit - result in a much higher quality of life. Building more single unit, tract housing on agricultural lands simply cannot continue. The era of building tract housing must come to an end if we are ever to tackle our environmental and economic challenges. Most importantly, it must come to an end if we are to preserve and protect the land to pass on to our children. Doing otherwise would leave them with an environmental mess and a sprawling infrastructure system they can ill afford to maintain. We can do better than leave this to future generations.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

5


1.3 Deryk Smith, Chairman, Greenlands Centre Wellington Do We Have A Strategy For Managing Growth? Growth Projections • The Golden Horseshoe will grow by 3.7million by 2031 • Centre Wellington will grow by 11,000 by 2022 Tools For Managing Growth • Planning Act • Provincial Policy Statement • Greenbelt Act • Places to Grow Act • County & Municipal Official Plans • Zoning By-Laws The foregoing provincial legislation provides the policy framework for land use and development in Ontario. Among other imperatives are the requirements to protect our agricultural, natural heritage and water resource systems. Conformity with these policies by all Municipalities is a requirement of the legislation. The Greenbelt is comprised primarily of the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment. There can be no urban development within the Greenbelt. The “Places to Grow” are located outside the Greenbelt in centres and areas identified by the legislation. Guelph is targeted as a growth centre and the Township of Centre Wellington as a growth area. The participants at our workshop held in April 2007 addressed four subject areas, namely: water, the natural heritage system, growth management and recreation. The participants were asked to express their ideas in writing and through a mapping exercise using a clear overlay on base maps provided. I have chosen four of twelve overlays to illustrate some of the common themes which were articulated.

Designing Our Future Community 6


Opportunities and Constraints The participants mapped separately ground and service water, the natural heritage system and agricultural lands. These maps were then overlaid upon a base map containing no natural features. The adding of each layer demonstrates the apparent opportunities for and constraints to urban development outside the existing urban boundaries.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

7


Opportunities and Constraints Similarly, to consider opportunities for growth and recreation within existing or expanded urban boundaries reveals the constraints and gives rise to consideration of acceptable compromises. The growth management discussion centered around the protection of farmland, implementation of smart growth principles, transportation of persons and goods, establishing a “hard� boundary or outer limit for urban expansion. The recreation discussions included identification of existing greenspaces, potential for linkages among schools, park spaces, recreation facilities, natural areas, neighborhoods and communities. Conclusion Participants overwhelmingly expressed a desire to protect, conserve, preserve and enhance the natural environment. The mapping exercise while not science based, is an expression nevertheless of the values held in the community.

Designing Our Future Community 8


3.0 Presentations 3.1 Eric Coleman, MLA Student, University of Guelph • • • • • •

Introduction Important Documents: How Much Habitat is Enough Significant Woodlands Identification Approach for Lands Assessment Outstanding Issues

Objectives: Compile GIS database Method of Land Evaluation Background Research Introduction Context • Fragmented landscape • Reasonable water quality • Lots of agriculture • Heavy demand on water resources Regionally • Growing population • Looming health + lifestyle and environmental problems • Unprecedented public environmental will

GGISI Sdatabas Database e

What houldWeWe Meas ure? WhatSShould Measure? Interes ts (G oals ) : • Healthy active lifes tyles • S us tainable ecology • Water quality and cons ervation

F ocus

What s hould our targets be?

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

9


at is Enough?

Example

How Much Habitat is E nough?

tion in How Much Habitat is Enough?

Example

Inverhaugh

River and stream buffers 30m, Wetland buffer 100m

G uidelines for habitat rehabilitation in G reat Lakes areas of concern Wetland T argets V ariable Minimum natural vegetation boundaries

nt area

of sizes maximize interior 

W etland s ize W etland s hape

T arget B og: total catchment area F en:100m Mars h: 100m S wamp: 100m Maintain divers ity of s izes C ircular or square (maximize interior area)

R iparian T argets V ariable Naturally vegetated banks S tream buffer s ize Impervious nes s of waters hed

th

F ores t C over T argets V ariable F orest cover Maximum forest patch s ize F orest patch s hape

00m in width maximize interior 

patch

Maximum dis tance to s imilar

C orridor width Environment Canada 2004

T arget Minimum 75% length Minimum 30m Maximum 10%

interior

T arget Minimum 30% Minimum 200ha, 500m in width C ircular or square (maximize area) 2km Minimum 50m

¯

E nvironment C anada 2004

1:15,000

S ignificant Woodlands Significant Woodlands

oodlands

Level 1

Local K nowledge

Level 2

Digital As s es s ment

Level 3

F ield S tudies

Methods for identifying S ignificant W oodlands

Ontario Nature (F ederation of Ontario Naturalis ts ) 2004

Method For Local Knowledge

Land Evaluation

1. Assessment Establish Digital

area boundaries 2. Add context (2km buffer) 3. Update layers Field Studies 4. Calculate percentage land use 5. Select significant woodland patches

Methods for identifying Significant Woodlands

Significance Criteria S ignificance

Significance Criteria Identification of Significant  Woodlands Woodland Size:

Significance criteria <5%         ‐all woodlands

Percent forest cover and related significant  5‐10%     ‐2ha Patch size 11‐15%   ‐4ha

Hydrological Linkage Forest  Interior: Total Forest Cover and related significant  interior forest size

Landscape Connectivity Slope

) 2004

C riteria

16‐20%   ‐10ha 21‐30%   ‐15ha 31‐50%   ‐25ha >50%       ‐40ha Within 30m of hydrological feature <10% of total forest cover ‐ All  forest interiors <30%   ‐ 4ha inside 100m  buffer >=30% ‐ 4ha inside 200m buffer Anything overlapping a local or  regional  corridor or natural heritage  feature 10% or greater

Designing Our Future Community 10


1. Establish Area Boundaries

2. Add Context (2km buffer)

3. Update Layers

4. Calculate Percentage Land Use

5. Select Significant Woodlots

Results: • New layers - woodlands and built up area • Format comparable to Federal guidelines • Significant woodlands selection

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

11


3.2

Sean Kelly, Keynote Presentation

“What are the natural features which makes a township handsome? A river, with its waterfalls and meadows, a lake, a hill, a cliff or individual rocks, a forest, and ancient trees standing singly? Such things are beautiful; they have a high use which dollars and cents never represent. If the inhabitants of a town were wise, they would seek to preserve these things.” Henry Thoreau (About 150 Years ago) Designing our Future Community •

What does this mean?

What can we design?

Over what time horizon – 5, 10, 25 years, more?

How do we live without losing nature?

Have we had enough nature to understand that we are losing it?

At present, the typical community rarely participates in the creation of their “place.”

Possibilities arise from discoveries! Discovery 1 The groups offering “good news” to the rest of us tend to mirror the fact that natural systems, such as habitats, watersheds and species composition, change every few miles or so.

1. We have a unique place.

2. Locals make it happen.

Discovery 2 As soon as people make the local commitment, the sustainability concepts begin to brew:

1. The greatest physical asset of our Township is its landscape.

2. Every landscape has its own signature.

What is Greenlands Creating? • Master Plan – can’t firmly “fix” the shape of years of future development •

Plan should be vague – minimize constraints?

Designing Our Future Community 12


Perhaps, a Greenlands Centre Wellington “outcome” should be a set of “Guiding Principles” •

that will last over time,

be easily transferable to new champions,

be clearly definitive as to intent but not as to final form.

Times change, things are happening . . . •

significant land degradation

population growth

water shortages

fertile soil erosion

biodiversity loss

the spread of large urban centres

Some of us will experience these – our children certainly will. Land use pattern will be at centre stage . . . . . . and this relates to both nature and culture Nature: biological patterns and physical processes entwined in vegetation, populations, richness, climate, water, etc. Culture: integrates the diverse human dimensions of economics, aesthetics, community social patterns, recreation, transportation, etc. Natural heritage is typically an afterthought in planning developments – or at least secondary to the goal of putting in as many housing units, commercial floor space, parking spaces, etc, as possible. And they are changing for the good too . . . There has been a “sea of change” related to planning principles partially due to the advent of the Greenbelt Plan. “By setting policies and boundaries in a Secondary Plan, Oakville is balancing the need to provide land to accommodate growth (provincially mandated) with the equally important need to maintain a vital, healthy natural heritage system.” OMB Vice-chair Susan Campbell •

preserving 3,400 hectares of developable land

20% larger than Central Park, NYC

larger than Stanley Park, Vancouver

almost twice the size of Toronto’s High Park

Oakville is preserving an extensive network of “linked natural heritage” corridors as the first priority and foundation for development. It is a realistic and superior, forward-thinking method of protecting natural heritage.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

13


Key words: priority, foundation It can be done! The times are changing – the public today demands and expects green planning. And Greenlands is right on it. . . . ideas, policies, boundaries, information, etc., will help our community define a balance for the need to provide suitable land to accommodate Township growth with the equally important need to maintain our vital, healthy natural heritage system . . .

Leveling the Field – Landscape Ecology 101 Focuses on specific spatial pattern in a section of a landscape, where biological communities interact with the physical environment. It applies to any land mosaic – from urban to suburban to rural The sidebar shows a glimpse of Centre Wellington’s mosaic The mosaic is a living system It has structure, it functions and it changes The structural pattern of any landscape is composed entirely of three types of elements: 1. Vegetation Patches 2. Corridors 3. Matrix Can we evaluate these? Should these be a constraint to development? •

Patches – are they small, round, elongated, smooth or convoluted, few or numerous, dispersed or clustered, etc.

Would this influence their value to you?

Corridors – are they narrow or wide, narrow or wide enough, straight or curvy, continuous or disconnected, etc.

When adding development – a house, a road, a school, or other elements – it changes the functioning of the mosaic.

Removing an element alters flows in a different manner. And rearranging the existing elements causes greater changes in how our Township functions.

How do we “place” development?

Designing Our Future Community 14


We know we need to make a priority of preserving and creating a “linked natural heritage” system as a foundation for further development in the Township. Working through an Opportunities & Constraints, a ‘Connections,’ and ‘Places for’ exercises is the next step.

Opportunities & Constraints 101 Consider, as an example: •

A common landscape pattern in Centre Wellington – fragmentation

Often associated with the loss and isolation of habitat

How do you evaluate development opportunities within a fragmented landscape?

You start by looking at a Natural Heritage Map

Remnants

Introduced (new suburban developments in agricultural areas)

Remnants

Disturbance (windstorm)

Environmental resources (wetlands)

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

15


2.3 Table Top Presentations Participants: Elora Cataract Trailway Association Fergus and District Horticultural Society Guelph Urban Forest Friends Neighbour Woods - Centre Wellington The Arboretum - University of Guelph Wellington County Historical Society

Designing Our Future Community 16


3.0 Activities 3.1

Activity 1: Township On The Wall

(“Putting imagination to work by visiting an imaginary point of land, Township, surrounded by water) Goal - To reveal in microcosm - the many ‘human’ traits that occur in community development (within 20 minutes the participants witnessed the rise and decline of the Township, the challenges of development)

3.2

Activity 2: A Day In The Life

“Addressing what desired activities would go on in the new township, on weekends, weekdays, during holidays, and special events, throughout the year.” Goal - To identify in an ‘open forum’ how people use the Township in a 24hr period (from 6am to 6am)

3.3

Activity 3: Defining Opportunity And Constraints

“A mapping technique to aid the determination of participant -identified Greenland development ‘opportunities and constraints’ within Centre Wellington.” Goal - To have participants understand that each individual places ‘value’ on cultural and biophysical characteristics of a place. Quite often we have differing values. Identifying what one thinks are areas suitable for a range (high, medium, low) of development.

3.4

Activity 4: Guiding Principles: Connections....

“Putting participants’ imagination to work by using the Opportunities and Constraints Plan to address the movement of people, wildlife, surface water, vehicles, etc.” Goal - To collect ‘System’ descriptions, information that can be articulated as principles to guide future development in the Township from a Greenlands perspective.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

17


3.5

Activity 5 - Guiding Principles: Places For....

Putting participant imagination to work by using the Opportunity and Constraints Plan (previous exercises) to address the distribution of facilities used for different purposes (types of facilities need to be discussed/determined) Goal - to collect ‘Land Use’ descriptions, information that can be articulated as principles to guide future development in the Township from a Greenland’s perspective.

3.6

Final Activity - Priority Voting/Closing the Workshop

Allows all workshop participants to view and ‘rank’ work generated from all the tables. Goal - to collect the participants evaluation/priority/comments of all the work generated during the workshop through a simplified ‘priority voting’ technique.

Designing Our Future Community 18


4.7 Participant Table Results

The following results are organized in order of number of votes cast during the final activity.

28 Votes Participant Table Seven Team Members: Facilitator: Scott Henderson Participants: Margaret, Fred, Judy

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Development should be within defined town areas in Fergus and Elora, intensifying the existing urban area.

Main Ideas: Rail option to be provided for Guelph and Kitchener Waterloo commuters. Prioritize rail for transport of goods and people.

Main Ideas: No notes at the table.

Urban areas to accommodate higher density, smaller units and common facilities for higher percentage of retired or young infill residents.

Transit (rail) to go around the outer rim of town.

Develop areas of aggregate extraction after removals.

See Environment Commissioner of Ontario Report 2007 re. roads.

Develop rail before expanding road system.

Agriculture to be protected for local supply.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

19


21 Votes Participant Table Five Team Members: Facilitator: Sheila Koop Participants: Vic Reimer, Dave, Mary Reimer, Raymond Soucy, Alec Calder, Kathy Bouma

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Protect wetlands and woodlots - high on priority list!

Main Ideas: New trail systems along south side of Grand River creating a circle trailway.

Main Ideas: Increase building and/ or dwelling units in low constraints areas, intensifying already developed areas.

New truck bypass along Country Road18 to Country Road 29 to cross south of Fergus to connect north and south on Country Road 7

Provide park and green space within low constraint areas.

Designing Our Future Community 20


18 Votes Participant Table Eleven Team Members: Facilitator: Bob Fleischauer Participants: Sue Foard, Dave Rushton, Doug Johnstone, Jean Innes, Benny DiZitti, Kirk McElwain, Shawn Watters,

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Areas of high constraints (such as woodlots, wetlands, water sources) will have low impact development such as trails.

Main Ideas: Establish trail systems, Swan Creek area and habitat connections, one and the same.

Main Ideas: Keeping industrial development within one area.

Medium constraint areas are those near existing development.

Create a truck route (TR), Second Line, east of Fergus to Fergus Industrial Park.

Developing an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ecoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (economic) business park - Aboyne - near hospital.

Need to set regulations for medium and low constraint areas.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

21


15 Votes Participant Table One Team Members: Facilitator: Tom Skimson Participants: John Morris, Eleanor Morris, Burna Wilton, Kelsy Coulter

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Water re-charge areas and wood lots are to be considered high constraint areas. Larger woodlots especially valuable.

Main Ideas: Need for bike paths and handicap accessible trails.

Main Ideas: Development of a large park along Highway 6 south of Fergus.

Corridor to downtown Fergus needs to be more accessible for biking and walking. (Elora Public school good model for biking trails)

New roads need to include bike paths.

Areas identified as high constraint areas should have a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Central Park.â&#x20AC;? Areas of low constraints to be defined as industrial before developing new areas. No development in wetlands northwest of Fergus - high constraint area.

Considerations need to be made for wildlife land and corridor systems

Integration of residential and industrial uses to create a successful urban core. Consider recreational use of Trask farm - portion not used for hospital include some Sorbara property.

Use industrial areas to develop transport corridor. Highway 6 to connect with ring road. Additional supportive corridor County Road 29 to Concession 2.

Designing Our Future Community 22


12 Votes Participant Table Three Team Members: Facilitator: Edward Thomas Participants: Participants Not Named

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Protect ecological corridor.

Main Ideas: Ecological and recreation corridors to connect existing trail systems.

Main Ideas: Industrial to be located north of Elora and west of Fergus.

Buffer Environmental Sensitive areas. Maintaining an urban area that is central with parkland between urban areas.

Public transit (monorail, bus shuttle) with connections to Guelph / Waterloo and within the community. Terminal at high school.

Need for facilities such as hospitals, medical clinics, etc.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

23


12 Votes Participant Table Four Team Members: Facilitator: John Hamilton Participants: Dorinda Keith, Robbie Keith, Shirley Smith, Nancy Knudstrup

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Higher percentage of development as green space within Community, currently only 5 percent.

Main Ideas: Trail and wildlife core connections along rivers and wetlands.

Main Ideas: Habitat themes.

Keep greenspace around museum, and hospital and maintain Elora Cataract Trailway.

Highway 6 re-routed around Fergus. Provide minibus public transportation.

High constraints around Grand and Irvine River ways and creeks. Edges to be buffered. Also around wetlands north of Belwood Lake and north of Irvine River. All agricultural land to be high constraint.

Designing Our Future Community 24


12 Votes Participant Table Six Team Members: Facilitator: Peter Scott Participants: Jim Keating, Dan Wright , Vince Zettel, George Collins

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Look for areas that preset the fewest or the least significant obstacles to growth - team questioned what kind of growth?

Main Ideas: Retain cultural heritage of road grid and laying out corridors to reflect existing infrastructure.

Main Ideas: No notes at the table.

Team also questioned the feasibility of their ideas - such as would property owners accommodate wildlife corridors by increasing or integrating woodlots for this purpose? How can planners encourage or enforce such measures?

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

25


9 Votes Participant Table Nine Team Members: Facilitator: George Loney Participants: Brent Boutellier, Monique Lee, Sarah Hennekens, Lisa Lefebrve, Linda Mae Ogilvie, Al Koop

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: More green development along Fergus river with walking trails and naturalization. Park system to be added between Fergus and Elora at the museum. Preserve wetlands and 100 metre buffer along Belwood Lake.

Main Ideas: Create a new industrial section south of river. Potential for a Highway 6 By-Pass.

Main Ideas: No notes at the table.

Constraint zone around town to prevent urban sprawl. Intensify existing development before development rather than developing outside of the townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s limits.

Walking trails to connect Belwood, Fergus and Elora. Creating a larger trail system and connecting Fergus with Guelph along the Jones Baseline to Guelph Conservation Area. Providing a train system for industrial transportation.

Designing Our Future Community 26


8 Votes Participant Table Two Team Members: Facilitator: Henry Panjer Participants: Frank Sillo, Menai Wardle, Shirley Moore, Donna Allcock, Anne Moffat, Carolyn Crozier Beth Brown

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: No notes at the table.

Main Ideas: More trail connections along river through Bissel Park and linking it to the Fergus Arboretum.

Main Ideas: Residential development to utilize brownfield land.

More accessibility to river.

Laneways behind homes to provide access.

Connection of natural wildlife corridors.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

27


7 Votes Participant Table Eight Team Members: Facilitator: Chris Hannell Participants: Don Fraser, Paul Hennekens, Jane Neff

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: How much agriculture does the area need, and how does development relate to this.

Main Ideas: Screening strip development at entrance of Fergus and Elora with trees and shrubs.

Main Ideas: Underground parking to reduce parking footprint. Combine hospital with parkland and decrease hospital footprint.

Designing Our Future Community 28


7 Votes Participant Table Ten Team Members: Facilitator: Stasia Stempski Participants: Tom Keating, Tim Farquhar, Deryk Smith, Kelly Waterhouse, Clive Wing

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Development to be mix use and include institutional and hospitals. Heritage structures and community gardens are important.

Main Ideas: Elora and Fergus to be linked by a â&#x20AC;&#x153;central parkâ&#x20AC;? idea. Keep truck roads and development from agriculture.

Main Ideas: Create a perimeter for people development. Create nature reserves to move wildlife, linking them to the river.

Change of transit grid system to get people from new areas through the greater community.

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

29


2 Votes Participant Table Twelve Team Members: Facilitator: Julius Mage Participants: Eric Coleman, Terri, Rosie Sigloch, Dave Tinker, Kari, Roch

Values

Connections and Corridors

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Water and natural heritage areas deemed most important to preserve constraints. Medium areas were based on proximity to towns (closer to towns were left as low constraints).

Main Ideas: Creating trails that are also wildlife corridors.

Main Ideas: Areas for urban growth. Protect areas of cultural heritage and existing amenities. Need for hospitals, day care, parks, and high school.

Maintain edges and minimum widths of high constraint areas.

Divert traffic from downtown Fergus. East-west vehicular corridors for local traffic and north-south corridors for regional (through) traffic.

Protect core wilderness areas with trails around perimeter and even signs or interpretive infrastructure.

Designing Our Future Community 30


4.0 Mapping Summary - Composite Maps 4.1

Opportunities and Constraints Map

4.2

Connections and Corridors Map

4.3

Places For.... Map

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

31


5.0 APPENDICES 5.1

Participation List

Donna Allcock Jeffery Beaton Kathy Bouma Brent Boutellier Denise Boyd-Dunlop Beth Brown Leigh Brownhill Alec Calder Eric Coleman George Collin Mary Copp David Copp Carolyn Crozier Kelsey Coulter Gary Cousins Benny DiZitti Toni Ellis Tim Farquhar Bob Fleischauer (F) Sue Foard Susan Forster Don Fraser Andie Goldie Lynda Golletz

Tom Keating

Joanne Ross_Zuj

Dorinda Keith

Nancy Scott

Robbie Keith

Peter Scott

Sean Kelly

Mary Shields

Nancy Knudstrup

Rosie Sigloch

Al Koop (F)

Tom Skimson (F)

Sheila Koop

Monique Smit

Sue Ledger

Shirley Smith

Monique Lee

Deryk Smith

Lisa Lefebrve

Eleanor Smith

George Loney (F)

Raymond Soucy

Julius Mage (F)

Stasia Stempski

Kirk McElwain

Frank Sillo

Anne Moffat

Brian G. Sulley

Shirley Moore

Jean Trask

John Morris

Julia Tyndale-Biscoe

Eleanor Morris

Dave Tinker

Mike Moss

Mark Van Patter

Jane Neff

Roberta Vilestra

Linda Mae Olgivie

Walt Visser

Harry Panjer (F)

Menai Wardle

Marsha L. Paley

Kelly Waterhouse

John Podmore

Shawn Watters

Joan Prowse

Burna Wilton

Mary Reimer

Clive Wing

Vic Reimer

Dan Wright

Dave Rushton

Vince Zettel

Barbara Hamilton John Hamilton Chris Hannell (F) Scott Henderson Paul Hennekens Sarah Hennekens Barrie Hopkins Jean Innes Rod Kane Jonathan Kearns Robert Kearns Jim Keating

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 - March 2008

35

Greenlands Centre Wellington Workshop 3 Report  

The report of the third workshop organized by Greenlands Centre Wellington to create a vision for development in Centre Wellington Township

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you