greenlands centre wellington workshop 3 report

Greenlands Centre WellingtonWorkshop 3 - March 2008

i

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 Activity3-DefiningOpportunityAndConstraints

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


1

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 inputintothelookofourneighborhoods.Theintensityofinfillingwillbeanadjustment 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 LeadershipAlliancemostCanadians are satisfiedwith the amount of landbeingsetasideforparksbutverydissatisfiedwiththestepsbeingtakentoprotectnaturalecosystems.Thissuggeststhatfinallythereisrecognitionofaland 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.

Designing Our Future Community

2

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.

Urbansprawlisdestroyingthousandsofacresofhabitatforfloraandfauna.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 inallfiveGreatLakesarebelowlong-termaveragesandsomeareatrecordlows. 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,wecannot let theshort-termeconomicproblems inagriculturecloud our judgement about the long-term. Nothing is more vital to our long-term 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;CubahassurvivedfivedecadeswithoutAmericanautomobiles,but would not survive a month without food.


3

If the environmental arguments remain unconvincing, then certainly the harsheconomicrealitymustbefaced.Overthelastfiftyyearswehavebuiltinfrastructure 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.Thelandhasinfluencedourcultureandimbuedoursenseofidentity.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 Peel-Halton 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 weareasCanadians.Thewaywetreatitisareflectionofwhoweareasapeople.

So what can be done? At a basic level, there are two solutions – adopt a zero populationgrowthpolicyorsignificantlyoverhaulurbanandtransitplanning.

Thefirstsolution,zeropopulationgrowth,doesnotentailzeroeconomicgrowth.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


4

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 likeToronto andMississaugawill have to significantly increase theirpopulations,whileundertakingsignificantexpansionsofpublictransitsystems.This will result in higher populations and densities in cities like Toronto and Mississauga,aneasingintheflowofcommutersandgoods,andinturn,anend 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 beaccommodatedbybuildingfivetoeightstorydensitiesalongmajortransitcorridors throughout the city, along streets like Yonge and Bloor in Toronto or Eglinton and Hurontario in Mississauga. Either way – 40 story condos in the coreofthecityorfivetoeightstorystructuresthroughoutthecity–thesecitieswouldbethebettercityforit.Pursuingintensificationbybuildingskyscraperswould create downtown cores of Manhattan-like density, not necessarily a bad thing. Manhattan is an eminently liveable and exciting city. Alternatively, pursuing intensificationwithfive toeight storydensitieswouldcreatecitiesmore akin to London or Paris, also eminently liveable. Either one of these two approaches–skyscrapersinthecoreorconsistentfivetoeightstorydensityalong 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.).Inadditiontotheenvironmentalbenefitofstoppingsprawl,thiswouldalsoproduceaneconomicbenefit:Productivityandwageswould increase,ceteris paribus. Reducing taxes on savings and investments would lead to increasedinflowsintothecapitalmarkets.Thismeansanincreaseincapitalavailable 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


5

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.


6

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.


7

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.


8

Opportunities and ConstraintsSimilarly, 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. Therecreationdiscussions included identificationofexistinggreenspaces,potential for linkagesamongschools, 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.


9

3.0 Presentations

3.1 Eric Coleman, MLA Student, University of Guelph

• Introduction• ImportantDocuments:• HowMuchHabitatisEnough• SignificantWoodlandsIdentification• ApproachforLandsAssessment• OutstandingIssues

Objectives:Compile GIS databaseMethod of Land EvaluationBackground Research

Introduction

Context• Fragmentedlandscape• Reasonablewaterquality• Lotsofagriculture• Heavydemandonwaterresources

Regionally• Growingpopulation• Loominghealth+lifestyleandenvironmentalproblems• Unprecedentedpublicenvironmentalwill

G IS databaseG I S Database What S hould We Measure?

Interests (G oals ):• Healthy active lifestyles• S ustainable ecology• Water quality and

conservationF ocus

What should our targets be?

What Should We Measure?


10

10/1/2008

2

How Much Habitat is Enough?Guidelines for habitat rehabilitation in

Great Lakes areas of concernWetland TargetsVariable TargetMinimum natural vegetation

boundariesBog: total catchment areaFen:100mMarsh: 100m

Riparian TargetsVariable TargetNaturally vegetated banks Minimum 75% lengthStream buffer size Minimum 30mImperviousness of watershed Maximum 10%

Swamp: 100mWetland size Maintain diversity of sizesWetland shape Circular or square (maximize interior

area)

Environment Canada 2004

Forest Cover TargetsVariable TargetForest cover Minimum 30%Maximum forest patch size Minimum 200ha, 500m in widthForest patch shape Circular or square (maximize interior

area)Maximum distance to similar patch 2kmCorridor width Minimum 50m

ExampleRiver and stream buffers 30m, Wetland buffer 100mInverhaugh

¯1:15,000

Significant Woodlands

Level 1 Local Knowledge

Ontario Nature (Federation of Ontario Naturalists) 2004

Methods for identifying Significant Woodlands

Level 2 Digital Assessment

Level 3 Field Studies

Significance CriteriaIdentification of Significant Woodlands

Significance criteria

Woodland Size:Percent forest cover and related significant Patch size

<5% ‐all woodlands5‐10% ‐2ha11‐15% ‐4ha16‐20% ‐10ha21‐30% ‐15ha31‐50% ‐25ha>50% ‐40ha

Hydrological Linkage Within 30m of hydrological featureForest Interior:Total Forest Cover and related significant interior forest size

<10% of total forest cover ‐ All forest interiors<30% ‐ 4ha inside 100m buffer>=30% ‐ 4ha inside 200m buffer

Landscape Connectivity Anything overlapping a local or regional corridor or natural heritage feature

Slope 10% or greater

Method for Land Evaluation

1. Establish area boundaries2. Add context (2km buffer)

U d l3. Update layers4. Calculate percentage land use5. Select significant woodland patches

1.Establish Area Boundaries

How Much Habitat is E nough?

G uidelines for habitat rehabilitation in G reat Lakes areas of concern

R iparian TargetsVariable TargetNaturally vegetated banks Minimum 75% lengthS tream buffer s ize Minimum 30mImperviousness of watershed Maximum 10%

R iparian TargetsVariable TargetNaturally vegetated banks Minimum 75% lengthS tream buffer s ize Minimum 30mImperviousness of watershed Maximum 10%

Wetland TargetsVariable TargetMinimum natural vegetation

boundariesB og: total catchment areaF en:100mMarsh: 100mS wamp: 100m

W etland s ize Maintain divers ity of s izesW etland shape C ircular or square (maximize

interior area)

Wetland TargetsVariable TargetMinimum natural vegetation

boundariesB og: total catchment areaF en:100mMarsh: 100mS wamp: 100m

W etland s ize Maintain divers ity of s izesW etland shape C ircular or square (maximize

interior area)

E nvironment C anada 2004

F ores t C over TargetsVariable TargetF orest cover Minimum 30%Maximum forest patch s ize Minimum 200ha, 500m in widthF orest patch shape C ircular or square (maximize

interior area)Maximum distance to s imilar

patch2km

C orridor width Minimum 50m

F ores t C over TargetsVariable TargetF orest cover Minimum 30%Maximum forest patch s ize Minimum 200ha, 500m in widthF orest patch shape C ircular or square (maximize

interior area)Maximum distance to s imilar

patch2km

C orridor width Minimum 50m

How Much Habitat is Enough?

S ignificant Woodlands

Ontario Nature (F ederation of Ontario Naturalis ts ) 2004

Methods for identifying S ignificant Woodlands

Level 2 Digital Assess ment

Level 3 F ield S tudies

Level 1 Local K nowledge

Level 2 Digital Assess ment

Level 3 F ield S tudies

Level 1 Local K nowledge

SignificantWoodlands S ignificance C riteriaSignificanceCriteria

1. Establish area boundaries2. Add context (2km buffer)3. Update layers4. Calculate percentage land use5. Selectsignificantwoodland patches

Method For Land Evaluation

Example


11

•Newlayers-woodlandsandbuiltuparea•FormatcomparabletoFederalguidelines•Significantwoodlandsselection

1. Establish Area Boundaries 2. Add Context (2km buffer)

3. Update Layers 4. Calculate Percentage Land Use

5.SelectSignificantWoodlots Results:


12

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?

Ma• sterPlan–can’tfirmly“fix”theshapeofyearsoffuturedevelopment

Plan should be vague – minimize constraints?•


13

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

that will last over time, • be easily transferable to new champions, •beclearlydefinitiveastointentbutnotastofinalform.•

Times change, things are happening . . .significantlanddegradation• 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 floorspace,parkingspaces,etc,aspossible.

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 firstpriority and foundation for development.

It is a realistic and superior, forward-thinking method of protecting natural heritage.


14

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.,willhelpourcommunitydefinea 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

Focusesonspecificspatialpatterninasectionofalandscape,wherebiologicalcommunities 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:

Vegetation Patches1. Corridors2. Matrix3.

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.

Wouldthisinfluencetheirvaluetoyou?•

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. Andrearranging the existing elements causes greater changes in how our Township functions.

How do we “place” development?•


15

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.

WorkingthroughanOpportunities&Constraints,a‘Connections,’and‘Placesfor’exercisesisthenextstep.

Opportunities&Constraints101

Consider, as an example: A common landscape pattern in Centre Wellington – • fragmentationOften 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)•


16

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


17

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-Torevealinmicrocosm-themany‘human’traitsthatoccurincommunitydevelopment (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-Toidentifyinan‘openforum’howpeopleusetheTownshipina24hrperiod (from 6am to 6am)

3.3 Activity3:DefiningOpportunityAndConstraints

“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-Tocollect‘System’descriptions,informationthatcanbearticulatedasprinciples to guide future development in the Township from a Greenlands perspective.


18

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-tocollect‘LandUse’descriptions,informationthatcanbearticulatedas 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 generatedduringtheworkshopthroughasimplified‘priorityvoting’technique.


19

4.7 Participant Table Results Thefollowingresultsareorganizedinorderofnumberofvotescastduringthefinal activity.

28 Votes

Participant Table Seven

Team Members:Facilitator: Scott HendersonParticipants: Margaret, Fred, Judy

Values

Main Ideas: Development should be withindefinedtownareasinFergusand Elora, intensifying the existing urban area.

Urban areas to accommodate higher density, smaller units and common facilities for higher percentageofretiredoryounginfillresidents.

Develop areas of aggregate extraction after removals.

Agriculture to be protected for local supply.

Connections and Corridors

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

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

Develop rail before expanding road system.

See Environment Commissioner of Ontario Report 2007 re. roads.

Places for .....

Main Ideas: No notes at the table.


20

21 Votes

Participant Table Five

Team Members:Facilitator: Sheila KoopParticipants: Vic Reimer, Dave, Mary Reimer, Raymond Soucy, Alec Calder, Kathy Bouma

Values

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.

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

Places for .....

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

Provide park and green space within low constraint areas.


21

18 Votes

Participant Table Eleven

Team Members:Facilitator: Bob FleischauerParticipants: Sue Foard, Dave Rushton, Doug Johnstone, Jean Innes, Benny DiZitti, Kirk McElwain, Shawn Watters,

Values

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

Medium constraint areas are those near existing development.

Need to set regulations for medium and low constraint areas.


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

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

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Keeping industrial development within one area.

Developingan‘eco’(economic)business park - Aboyne - near hospital.


22

15 Votes

Participant Table One

Team Members:Facilitator: Tom SkimsonParticipants: John Morris, Eleanor Morris, Burna Wilton, Kelsy Coulter

Values

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

Areasidentifiedashighconstraintareas should have a “Central Park.”

Areas of low constraints to be definedasindustrialbeforedeveloping new areas.

No development in wetlands north-west of Fergus - high constraint area.


Main Ideas: Need for bike paths and handicap accessible trails. Corridor to downtown Fergus needs to be more accessible for biking and walking. (Elora Public school good model for biking trails)

Considerations need to be made for wildlife land and corridor systems

Use industrial areas to develop transport corridor.

Highway 6 to connect with ring road.

Additional supportive corridor - County Road 29 to Concession 2.

Places for .....

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

New roads need to include bike paths.

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.


23

12 Votes

Participant Table Three

Team Members:Facilitator: Edward ThomasParticipants: Participants Not Named

Values

Main Ideas: Protect ecological corridor.

Buffer Environmental Sensitive areas.

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


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

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

Places for .....

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

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


24

12 Votes

Participant Table Four

Team Members:Facilitator: John HamiltonParticipants: Dorinda Keith, Robbie Keith, Shirley Smith, Nancy Knudstrup

Values

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

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

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.


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

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

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Habitat themes.


25

12 Votes

Participant Table Six

Team Members:Facilitator: Peter ScottParticipants: Jim Keating, Dan Wright , Vince Zettel, George Collins

Values

Main Ideas: Look for areas that preset the fewest or the least significantobstaclestogrowth-teamquestioned what kind of growth?

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?


Main Ideas: Retain cultural heritage of road grid and laying out corridors toreflectexistinginfrastructure.

Places for .....



26

9 Votes

Participant Table Nine

Team Members:Facilitator: George LoneyParticipants: Brent Boutellier, Monique Lee, Sarah Hennekens, Lisa Lefebrve, Linda Mae Ogilvie, Al Koop

Values

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.

Constraint zone around town to prevent urban sprawl. Intensify existing development before development rather than developing outside of the town’s limits.


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

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.

Places for .....



27

8 Votes

Participant Table Two

Team Members:Facilitator: Henry PanjerParticipants: Frank Sillo, Menai Wardle, Shirley Moore, Donna Allcock, Anne Moffat, Carolyn Crozier Beth Brown

Values



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

More accessibility to river.

Connection of natural wildlife corridors.

Places for .....

Main Ideas: Residential development toutilizebrownfieldland.

Laneways behind homes to provide access.


28

7 Votes

Participant Table Eight

Team Members:Facilitator: Chris HannellParticipants: Don Fraser, Paul Hennekens, Jane Neff

Values

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.

Places for .....

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


29

7 Votes

Participant Table Ten

Team Members:Facilitator: Stasia StempskiParticipants: Tom Keating, Tim Farquhar, Deryk Smith, Kelly Waterhouse, Clive Wing

Values

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 “central park” idea. Keep truck roads and development from agriculture. Change of transit grid system to get people from new areas through the greater community.

Places for .....

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


30

2 Votes

Participant Table Twelve

Team Members:Facilitator: Julius Mage Participants: Eric Coleman, Terri, Rosie Sigloch, Dave Tinker, Kari, Roch

Values

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).

Maintain edges and minimum widths of high constraint areas.


Main Ideas: Creating trails that are also wildlife corridors.

DiverttrafficfromdowntownFergus.East-west vehicular corridors for localtrafficandnorth-southcorridorsforregional(through)traffic.

Places for .....

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

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


31

4.0 Mapping Summary - Composite Maps

4.1 Opportunities and Constraints Map

4.2 Connections and Corridors Map

4.3 Places For.... Map


35

5.0 APPENDICES5.1 Participation List

Donna AllcockJeffery BeatonKathy BoumaBrent BoutellierDenise Boyd-DunlopBeth BrownLeigh BrownhillAlec CalderEric ColemanGeorge CollinMary CoppDavid CoppCarolyn CrozierKelsey CoulterGary CousinsBenny DiZittiToni EllisTim FarquharBob Fleischauer (F)Sue FoardSusan ForsterDon FraserAndie GoldieLynda GolletzBarbara HamiltonJohn HamiltonChris Hannell (F)Scott HendersonPaul HennekensSarah HennekensBarrie HopkinsJean InnesRod KaneJonathan KearnsRobert KearnsJim Keating

Tom KeatingDorinda KeithRobbie KeithSean KellyNancy KnudstrupAl Koop (F)Sheila KoopSue LedgerMonique LeeLisa LefebrveGeorge Loney (F)Julius Mage (F)Kirk McElwainAnne MoffatShirley MooreJohn MorrisEleanor MorrisMike MossJane NeffLinda Mae OlgivieHarry Panjer (F)Marsha L. PaleyJohn PodmoreJoan ProwseMary ReimerVic ReimerDave Rushton

Joanne Ross_ZujNancy ScottPeter ScottMary ShieldsRosie SiglochTom Skimson (F)Monique SmitShirley SmithDeryk SmithEleanor SmithRaymond SoucyStasia StempskiFrank SilloBrian G. SulleyJean TraskJulia Tyndale-BiscoeDave TinkerMark Van PatterRoberta VilestraWalt VisserMenai WardleKelly WaterhouseShawn WattersBurna WiltonClive WingDan WrightVince Zettel

greenlands centre wellington workshop 3 report

Documents

urban centre

council of centre wellington

greenlands centre wellington2

economic activity

county of wellington

green spaces

future growth

urban sprawlover