Mono Council made a decision on May 12th to accept the draft proposal of the developer, Pine Glen Farms, to develop 335 homes on the 70 hectare parcel of land adjacent to the Island Lake Phase 1 & 2 developments. Phase 1 and 2 were also Pine Glen Farms' developments. There are many technical issues to be resolved since the first proposal drafts surfaced in 2003/4 with respect to traffic, public safety, noise, water, sewage treatment systems, etc. In the end, the technical issues must conform to provincial or municipal or conservation authority regulations, but because of the size of the proposed development, each technical issue is complex, has required special studies, and most are as yet not resolved (e.g., traffic lights, noise barriers, communal sewage ownership, etc). Hopefully, there will not be too many requests for exemptions.

Within the envelope of these regulations, and within the economics of the project, there was considerable room for Mono Council to choose the size of the development, i.e., the number of homes, and to influence the design of the development. Unfortunately, it appears that Mono Council has been hands off on both of these issues. They received Pine Glen's draft proposal when it was first proposed to build 158 homes and a golf course in 2003. They received the next revision when it went to 302 homes and a golf course. When the province dictated no more individual septic systems for such developments and said they wanted intensification in serviced areas, Mono Council received Pine Glen's proposal for 324 homes, no golf course and 3 parks. At the May 12th, 2009 Council meeting, Pine Glen Farms announced that they had purchased an adjacent property and presented a draft proposal for 335 homes, no golf course and no parks. Mono called a public meeting on the development for that evening at which advocates and opponents presented their views and asked their questions. At 10:30 PM, Mono Council returned to a regular council meeting and at 10:40 PM made a decision to accept the draft proposal.

This is the largest development in the history of the Town of Mono. Why did Mono Council not suggest a smaller development more in keeping with the adjacent Purple Hill and Island Lake Phases 1 & 2 developments? Despite the size of the development, Mono Council did not explain the reasons behind its decision. It appears though that Mono Council is highly influenced by the recent Places to Grow legislation that states that the Town of Mono should add approximately 1100 additional homes by 2031. By accepting as many homes as possible in Phase 3 of the Island Lake development, the Town would likely have fewer severances of larger properties or farms in the future to deal with. In this way they would, ostensibly, preserve the rural character of the Town, or at least some of the Town. In effect, Mono Council sacrificed the lifestyles of the existing residents of Purple Hill and Island Lake, and the future residents of Island Lake Phase 3, for some undefined version of what it means to live rurally in the Town of Mono. Instead of a vision that had been informed by the more substantial Purple Hill and Island lake properties, Mono Council's unstated vision seems to be guided by as much intensification as possible in the Southern areas of the Town of Mono.

Island Lake Phase 3 will not look like the urban sprawl in Brampton, as some critics have suggested. Pine Glen Farms will do a better job than that. But it will not look like Island Lake 1 and 2 or Purple Hill.

The still difficult to resolve technical issues associated with traffic, noise, water, sewage, etc. could all be ameliorated if the development had100 fewer homes.

The Mono web site statement of "Rolling hills, trees and meadows. Room to run, to stretch, to breathe." does not reconcile with the decision that was made by Mono Council. They could have been more proactive in how they handled this development proposal over the years. It would have led to a much better outcome. They could have influenced Phase 3 to align with a vision of Mono in the future, except that such a vision does not exist. Going forward, will being a resident of Mono mean being a resident of the kind of urban sprawl the Greenbelt was intended to control?

This was definitely a poor decision by Mono Council.

We at the Mono Mulmur Citizens' Coalition are disappointed and upset with Council's decision. In the Fall, we will take it upon ourselves to invite Mono citizens to help develop a vision for the Town of Mono's future. We hope Mono Council and staff will join us.
Harvey Kolodny,
On behalf of the
Board of Directors of
(MC)2