Golf course, housing near Island Lake a concern for neighbours

2006-07-20 / Local News

By MANDI HARGRAVE Staff Reporter

Neighbours in Mono are voicing concerns over a proposed Official Plan (OP) amendment as well as a proposed development that includes houses and a golf course east of the Island Lake Estate subdivision.

About 60 residents of the existing subdivision attended a public meeting of Mono Council Tuesday night that sought input on the proposed amendment.

The town's mandatory five-year OP review is trying to incorporate future population, housing and employment growth to the year 2024.

Ontario's Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) says it expects an extensive study in relation to rural and agricultural lands, aggregates and natural heritage mapping before Mono will have full compliance with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

"Consideration of these elements would require significant monetary and resource expenditures on the part of the Town, which, without provincial support, would be prohibitive at this time," states a report by Wendy Nott and Greg Daly of Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Ltd.

There are certain physical and environmental characteristics of the town that could limit how it can accommodate the required growth as set by the province, which is 8,800 additional residents by 2024.

Characteristics listed in the report:

 Distribution of prime agricultural lands, which lands are intended to be preserved in accordance with provincial and local policy;

 Significant areas of the Town affected by the Niagara Escarpment Plan;

 Areas affected by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;

 Areas affected by the Greenbelt Plan, which includes portions of the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;

 The town's location in the headwaters of three major watersheds and the effect of the Town's groundwater policies, and

 Other environmentally significant features.

Opportunities considered for more residential development included the town's currently designated hamlets: Camilla, Violet Hill, Mono Centre, Rosemont and the Highway 9/Purple Hill area.

However, conflict with the PPS and servicing constraints will exclude any major expansion of these areas.

A long sigh from the neighbours followed Mr. Daly's statement that the growth plan requires residential intensification in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. What that means is that when in the past the average was one housing unit per acre, it's now eight units per acre.

Not all residents who attended the meeting were against the subdivision development. A few spoke in favour of it even though they had some concerns.

Mark Darby stated that the town doesn't need eight houses per acre. "We don't want this area to be Toronto."

However, he urged the other residents present to welcome new residents into the community the way they all had been by residents, some of whom had been living there for decades.

"We're all here because residents welcomed us into their community."

But resident David Dean was completely against the development.

"Council has the opportunity to live up to its words on the website [which describes a beautiful green scenery]. Stop the development completely."

Clive Hollingberry spoke before council on behalf of about 27 people whose list of concerns included the Planning Act, the Greenbelt Hamlet designations, the Greenbelt itself, wetland mapping, population growth, development intensification, single-tier rural designation and the Places to Grow Act. He asked council a number of questions in relation to those items.

Hugh Sutherland stated that when it comes to business you can never satisfy everyone, so the two sides should meet in the middle. He added that outside of farmland, the best use for land was golf courses.

After listening to all of the comments, Mayor Keith Thompson told the crowd the decision was too important to make that evening.

Councillor Ken McGhee, in agreement, said, "This is the future of our town and we need to do it right."

A report from staff has been requested to answer the concerns. It will come back for a meeting in September, a resident having complained that the public meeting was taking place in the middle of summer when a lot of people are on vacation.

Return to top

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.