Despite being told by many citizens that they do not want Garafraxa Street extended into the Wellington Place lands in the future, county council left the door wide open for that to happen on June 30.
The proposal for the plan for the lands at the county museum was voted on separately, probably because even the committee could not agree on its recommendation.
There were two votes at the committee. The first one passed, but a second one was recorded – and tied – and that meant it was defeated.
It was later approved by county council – with no discussion.
The motion included that the MHBC Planning consultants’ report, with an addendum, be received for information. It had a recommendation that MHBC would prepare an amendment to the county official plan, using option B for Wellington Place.
The director of planning and development was to give notice and circulate the proposed amendment in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act.
When the recorded vote was taken at the committee meeting, councillors Bruce Whale and planning committee chairman Shawn Watters were in favour, and councillors John Green and Jean Innes were opposed. Warden Chris White was absent.
In both of the options presented at a recent public meeting, residents in attendance voted overwhelmingly against extending Garafraxa Street in Fergus onto the museum lands. That was a request by Groves hospital officials who want a second, fast access to the hospital.
However, residents noted the road would have to cross the walking trails on the property – not once, but twice – and they believe that is a safety issue.
The Elora Cataract Trailway, located to the north of the property along the Colborne Street extension between Elora and Fergus, already has a service road crossing the trail, and that crossing was bitterly opposed by many at the time the road was built. Trail aficionados insisted they do not want that to happen again.
There is also currently a house located at the end of Garafraxa Street.
Both options included expanded walking trails and links between those and existing trails. The trails were designed to provide the best scenic views for hikers on the property.
In both concept plans, the street entering the property off Beatty Line would run between two trails, and not cross them.
In both plans there is a roundabout. It would be located at a curve on the service road and could accommodate the Garafraxa Street extension.
There is also a commons area being proposed. That property was set at six acres and would allow for a grassy and treed public park. Some citizens wanted it expanded to ten acres.
There would be at least two more interior roads. There are civic uses set aside behind the museum parking lot, and one road would then run between those and the proposed commons, and join another road that would enter the property at Beatty Line. That road would also connect to the roundabout.
Just to the south of the commons would be designated educational lands.
When Watters presented the planning committee report to council, he moved that the recommendation that had been turned down by the committee be approved (option B had appeared to be the one most favoured by citizens at the public meeting).
The report the county was dealing with said of the Garafraxa Street extension proposal, “The potential street connection to the intersection of Garafraxa Street West and the Beatty Line be included within the extent of the project area. Additional analysis is required to consider the broader transportation network and the impact of any crossing of the Elora Cataract Trailway.”
The report sent to the committee stated the reaction to the Garafraxa Street extension was “mixed.”
Supportive housing
Several citizens were opposed to a proposal to include “supportive housing” on the lands, to the east of the trestle bridge.
County council kept that proposal in the plans. The report stated, “the area intended for ‘supportive housing’ [will] be reserved within the concept plan in recognition of the county’s mandate to provide that service. The areas for this use may be modified over time as details on need and density evolve.”
Council also approved option B when it came to the Commons. That choice was made in order to increase the visibility and accessibility of the commons. However, the report stated the intent is to maintain the six acre proposal rather than the ten acres that some people had suggested.
The reason for that was “the function of the commons as a landscaped meeting place.”
Plan B offered a couple of different options. It placed the road running behind the museum adjacent to the commons, with the civic uses on the other side. In both plans, the lands in front of the museum would remain unchanged. Further, the lands the county owns across County Road 18 right to the Grand River are designated for natural areas and would remain unchanged.
The final recommendation was that future development be carefully considered to address “the bobolink habitat, including the potential allocation of portions of the site and-or other lands for habitat purposes.”
After council had approved its committee minutes, Watters told council there had been much debate at the committee level, and he asked council to support the recommendation that had been defeated there.
“The plan was well received,” he said, adding, “It is my hope we get council support.”
He moved the report be accepted, seconded by councillor Dennis Lever, and White immediately called the vote. It carried.
Councillor Joanne Ross-Zuj congratulated council and said the proposal is “a very innovative plan.”
But councillor Lou Maieron noted that there was a “difference of opinion” at the committee and wondered why Green and Innes had been opposed.
White told him, “We’ve had the vote.”
Innes said all along she has supported the work, but she had “some issues with the guidelines.” She said there was talk of revisions when the vote was called, but she was always 100% in favour of a concept plan.
