Office of the CAO
November 3, 2009
REPORT A6‐2009
15
Kissing Bridge Trailway
Members of the public have questioned whether or not development will remove and/or change the
Kissing Bridge Trailway.
•
Staff Comments: There is no intention to remove the Kissing Bridge Trailway or remove
public access points to the Kissing Bridge Trailway in the vicinity of the subject lands. Public
Trails in Woolwich, including the Kissing Bridge Trailway, are important aspects of the
Township and Staff is committed to maintaining these resources.
Township of Woolwich Environmental Enhancement Committee (TWEEC)
Clarification of the role of Township of Woolwich Environmental Enhancement Committee (TWEEC)
with respect to the subject lands was requested.
•
Staff Comments: TWEEC is a Committee of Council and set up as an operations group to
complete projects throughout the Township. TWEEC was not intended or set up to provide
comments on planning applications.
3.4 Summary of Evaluation of Policy and Technical Issues
In conclusion, based on consultation with Township Staff, research and study by Ecoplans, the
Region, and consultation with the GRCA, development of the subject lands for residential uses is
technically feasible subject to completing additional studies identified through this report as well as the
detailed design and engineering of the development. Notwithstanding this, there is another key issue
requiring discussion: the issue of the benefits of developing the subject lands versus retaining the
subject lands as open space.
4.0 BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING THE SUBJECT LANDS VERSUS
RETAINING THE SUBJECT LANDS AS OPEN SPACE
Staff considered whether the subject lands should be retained as part of the overall area and not
developed. This issue was clearly articulated by members of the public. Staff received comments
indicating that developing the subject lands is not required and inconsistent with the Township’s
policies. Furthermore, members of the public stated that the subject lands should be preserved as
they are for aesthetic, recreational, educational, and spiritual uses (i.e. not developed for residential
uses).
If the Township does not explore development of the subject lands, the subject lands could be
preserved. In this scenario, the Township would not receive anticipated revenues for the Capital
Facilities Program. The financial implications of not pursuing development of the subject lands are
outlined in the following section, Section 5.0.
Conversely, all vegetation on the subject lands could be removed and cut down to maximize
development potential. This would allow for a greater number of smaller lots but no tree retention. In
this scenario, the Township could receive anticipated revenues for the Capital Facilities Program.
A third option is to design a balanced approach which would entail larger lots and greater tree
conservation and protection on the subject lands. Although Staff have received questions and
comments about the proposed development of the subject lands in relation to the Township’s
Environmental and Stewardship Policies, Staff believe that the Township has implemented this
balanced approach in the past with success. There are at least two developments that have occurred
within woodlots: South Parkwood residential development, and the Walmart commercial development.
In both cases, the integrity and functioning of the woodlots have not been compromised. In addition,
in both instances, the majority of land has been retained as Open Space, thereby protecting land in
perpetuity that would otherwise be developed and not protected.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\BEVERLY\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK95\REPORT.DOC