On second thought

Council reverses committee decision and approves golf course residential development

Taking a sharp U-turn, council reversed its committee decision, made just 10 days earlier, and voted to approve an Official Plan Amendment to enable a golf course residential development to proceed in the village of Wellington, in a meeting last week.

EXPANDING LABYRINTH

It has been a long and twisted road Kaitlin Group has navigated since first arriving with its development plan in the fall of 2006. Originally the plan envisioned mostly single detached homes built around a fairly autonomous golf course community on the northern edge of the village.

Immediately, concerns arose over the form of housing, commercial stores in the development and the lack of integration with the existing village.

But there were other problems. Along the way the County’s Planning Commissioner Brian McComb left to pursue another job in Hastings County, taking a planner with him. For months the department drifted listlessly and with it the Kaitlin project.

Eventually the County hired Gerry Murphy to replace McComb and subsequently new staff were hired to fill out the ranks. But by then nearly a year had passed and the file hadn’t moved. Before tumult engulfed the planning department, Kaitlin had made significant alterations to its plans. There would be a mix of housing—apartments, townhouses, semis and detached homes. The commercial node was gone, encouraging buyers to support existing Wellington shops. Prices would range from the affordable to the midrange.

As the new planning chief, still unfamiliar to the community Gerry Murphy was understandably nervous about providing his endorsement to the project. Despite the fact the project was within the urban area prescribed by the secondary plan for the village, Murphy worried that the secondary plan was out of date and that the proposed project was outside the bounds of the Provincial Policy Statement which largely governs municipal land use planning.

Murphy asked for, and received, a six-month reprieve to allow time for an update to the village’s secondary plan. This would, in Murphy’s estimation, allow the community to weigh in on the project and the future development of the village. IBI, a consultancy, conducted well-attended community workshops and stakeholder meetings over the winter. This past spring, IBI produced a “preferred development strategy” gleaned from the feedback and ideas it gathered over the previous months.

They determined that future development should be encouraged below the Millennium Trail which largely defines the northern limit of development in the village. However, IBI determined that growth would also be compatible north of the trail if it met 10 principles of development. These principles required, among other things, new development to be highly integrated into the existing village via connecting green spaces, walking trails and streets.

The document also emphasized the requirement that any new development and architecture must respect the heritage and traditions of the existing village.

Over the summer the developer worked with the County’s planning staff to redesign the project to meet the guidelines spelled out in the preferred development strategy.

By the middle of the August, the two sides had reached a middle ground each could live with. Kaitlin arrived at the August 11 meeting of the committee of the whole with the endorsement of the County’s Planning, Public Works and Economic Development Departments.

But the committee wasn’t convinced. Some members wanted Public Works and Economic Development staff to explain to them, in person, how this project would affect infrastructure and existing golf businesses in the area.

That this information had been available, unquestioned, for several months didn’t diminish some councillors’ newfound curiosity at the doorstep to a decision.

Four councillors—Sandy Latchford, Brian Marisett, Richard Parks and John Thompson—had never been supportive of the project. No modifications would change their minds. The vote lost at committee, turning primarily on the lingering unanswered questions of Peggy Burris, Diane O’Brien and Lori Slik.

THE VILLAGE REACTS

The decision shocked many in the village and beyond. Most believed that the promise of jobs, a larger tax base and economic benefits resulting from growth would hardly be denied.

With the news of the committee’s no vote, residents mobilized—gathering opinions on surveys, calling councillors and working to overturn the decision at council. Their efforts were successful.

COUNCIL REVERSES COURSE

“I’ve done my homework,” announced Councillors Burris, O’Brien and Slik.

Each said they had, in the intervening days, received satisfactory answers to their questions. They were now prepared to support the project.

Councillor and mayoral candidate Monica Alyea continued to worry that the development was inappropriate for the village but when the vote was called she was also in support.

Fellow mayoral candidate Sandy Latchford tried to poke holes in the developer’s plans while taking backhand swipes at Planning staff.

“Are these guaranteed jobs?” demanded Latchford of Kaitlin principal Kelvin Whalen. Before allowing Whalen to answer she flung the question at Planning Chief Gerry Murphy: “Is there any way you can guarantee these jobs will be local?”

Murphy explained that he had no mechanism to force an employer to hire only in the County.

Whalen then took the floor to make it clear it is his firm’s practice and preference to hire workers, trades and suppliers in the local market.

“It makes the most sense,” explained Whalen, “both practically and economically, if these skills and capabilities are available locally.”

His answer complete, Whalen began making his way back to his seat.

“Get back here,” snapped Latchford. “I’m not done with you.”

Latchford went on to press her concern over traffic congestion in and around the village. She reminded council of the concerns of a couple who live on Gilead Road who, in response to a question posed by Latchford, had said, yes, they were concerned about the impact that a new development in Wellington might have on their road.

In a week, the hypothetical question had become a construction project. Latchford warned her fellow councillors that the future upgrade to Gilead Road would be funded by the general ratepayer—not the developer.

“I won’t support it,” snapped Latchford. “It’s very poor planning. Let’s stop it now.”

Wellington Councillor Peter Mertens, growing weary of the drive-by decision-making offered by some on council, brought the debate back to earth.

“I live in Wellington,” said Mertens. “I walk to the post office every day. The people of Wellington are overwhelmingly in support of this project.

“We look to the development of Wellington on the Lake. There has been no traffic congestion or gridlock. That community has grown and become an important part of this community. People see this development in the same way.” Mertens left it to Picton Councillor Bev Campbell to spell out the achievements gained in the past two years through nearly two years of work by the Planning Committee and Kaitlin.

“I want to commend Planning and Public Works staff and Kaitlin for working together to develop a project that is quite acceptable,” said Campbell. “People had a lot to say during the secondary plan review. Most were in favour of the plan. At the end of the day we have arrived at a project that I believe is quite suitable for the village.”

She emphasized the project’s mix of housing and range of prices.

“This isn’t the whole answer,” said Campbell. “But it is part of the answer. We need this stock of housing.”

Councillor Kevin Gale was surprised the developer was still standing before County council after four years of new and random hurdles.

“We need the jobs, the students to attend our schools and affordable housing,” said Gale. “My hat is off to you for still being here and enduring all these roadblocks.”