Economic Benefits Questioned at OMB Hearing
On the sixth day of the Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB") hearing regarding the Burl's Creek Event Grounds the OMB heard the opinions of both Mr. Arthur Churchyard, a policy advisor with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs ("OMAFRA"), and Dr. Peter Tomlinson regarding the temporary use by-law proposed for Burl's Creek and the economic impact of the events happening there. Mr. Churchyard's analysis focused at length on Section 2.3.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement, which lays out a number of tests any proposal would need to meet to get a green light from OMAFRA.
“There needs to be an actual land-use argument about whether there is a demand for a site,” Churchyard said. “I would not be able to support this proposed use as being consistent with (Section) 2.3.6.”
Mr. Churchyard challenged Burl's Creek's market analysis in that it did not go far enough to assess the demand for such uses beyond ticket sales for the events and that it did not go far enough to look for alternative sites for such events.
When Dr. Tomlinson took the stand he began his testimony by telling the board the camping and parking being considered under the temporary use by-law were actually a drain on the local economy, when looked at on their own.
“The concerts provide the economic benefits,” he said. “The camping on-site is probably — considered on its own — a negative economic impact ... simply because of the on-site camping penning the attendees in the event grounds, where there are no in-and-out privileges and where they're compelled to buy their food and beverages the organizers bring onto the event grounds.”
The hearing adjourned at the conclusion of Dr. Tomlinson's testimony, with a resumption date to be determined.
Read the news coverage here.
Noise focus of Burl's Creek OMB testimony on Tuesday
Week two of the Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB") hearing regarding the Burl's Creek Event Grounds opened with the testimony of three lay witnesses called to testify by SaveOro and West Oro Ratepayers' Association ("WORA"). The lay witnesses were followed by John Coulter, an acoustical engineer for SaveOro and WORA.
Read the news coverage here.
Week 1 of Burl's Creek OMB hearing wraps up
Despite assurances and best intentions, the Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB") hearing into the temporary zoning by-law proposed by Burl's Creek Event Grounds ended its first week of testimony far away from a resolution. Darren Vella, founder of Innovative Planning Services and the land-use planner retained by Burl's Creek, resumed his testimony to close out the Burl's Creek case. His testimony was designed to tie together the evidence given by the proponent's other expert witnesses.
It was assumed Vella would be cross-examined Friday as well, bringing a close to the Burl's Creek case. However, given the length of the Vella's testimony and the depth of the information he was presenting, the session ended while he was still in chief. Given Vella's prior commitments outside of the country next week, accommodating a cross-examination was not going to be simple.
“We keep adding time,” Chair Richard Makuch said. “When I saw this (as) three days ... I'm not pointing the finger at anybody; I'm just saying it was totally unrealistic.”
“I'm the only one in the room who can say 'I agree with you' with a straight face,” Donnelly added.
Read the news coverage here.
Participants tell OMB how they feel about Burl's Creek
Numerous stakeholders got their chance to officially tell the Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB") just how they feel about the proposed temporary use by-law for Burl's Creek Event Grounds Wednesday night. Participant statements were heard by the board at the conclusion of a marathon session Wednesday, which lasted approximately 12 hours, including lunch and dinner breaks.
Read the news coverage here.
Day 3: First Nation call for more studies of Burl's Creek surfaces at OMB hearing
On the third day of the Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB") hearing regarding the Burl's Creek Event Grounds arguments surrounding archaeological issues and First Nation concerns continued. The letters from the Huron-Wendat and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport were brought up again Thursday morning, as Paul Racher, the expert archaeologist for the Montagnais Métis First Nation, testified in front of the board.
During cross-examination, Save Oro and West Oro Ratepayers' Association lawyer David Donnelly led Racher through the letters, asking his professional opinion on their contents.
"The potential for disturbance is a risk the nation simply cannot take," Donnelly read from the letter. "Sir, is it clear to you, an archaeologist, that the Huron-Wendat Nation is withholding consent for the temporary use by-law to proceed before the proper archaeological assessments occur?"
"Absolutely," Racher replied.
The concern of the Huron-Wendat, Montagnais Métis and other like-minded individuals, such as Racher, is the compaction of the soil from camping and parking could damage any artifacts found underground, particularly in such a rich archaeological area as Oro-Medonte Township. Regardless, Racher said, most lands in the province are presumed to house archaeological artifacts until proven otherwise.
Read the news coverage here.
Land use, First Nation concerns on display during Day 2 of Burl's Creek OMB hearing
On the second day of the Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB") hearing regarding the Burl's Creek Event Grounds archaeological issues and First Nations concerns were explored by Chief Keith Doxsee representing the Montagnais Metis First Nation, and David Donnelly, counsel for SaveOro and West Oro Ratepayers' Association ("WORA"). Under cross-examination, Jamie Lemon, who prepared a Stage 1 archeological assessment for Burl's Creek, said both the Huron-Wendat Nation and Ministry of Tourism, Sport and Culture wrote in separate letters dated May 19 saying the temporary zoning by-law should not go forward until after a Stage 2 assessment is complete.
Mr. Dave Hogson, an agrologist for Burl's Creek, and Mr. Gord Miller, former Environmental Commissioner for Ontario and econologist for SaveOro and WORA, also took the stand.
A significant portion of David Donnelly's cross-examination of Hodgson was based on the latter's change of opinion regarding the type of buffer required via a minimum distance separation zone. Hodgson had previously considered a Type A buffer, which is substantially larger than a Type B buffer. Hodgson's opinion changed because he didn't consider the events occurring on the subject lands as “high intensity” recreational use.
Miller disagreed with Hodgson's classification. “The density is far in excess of what you see in any normal campground situation,” Miller said. “All this is on the highest impact of camping, as it were. This is hardly camping in a normal sense of the word. This is an intensive use of the land more akin to a box store parking lot than camping.
Read the news coverage here.
Lengthy opening day at Burl's Creek OMB climaxes with tense cross examination
On Tuesday May 24, 2016 the Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB") hearing on the temporary use by-law application for Burl's Creek Event Grounds begun. The hearing began with Burl's Creek calling Mr. Henry Regelink, an Oro-Medonte farmer, Sgt. Guiseppe Pileggi, an OPP Officer summonsed by Burl's Creek, a brief introduction by Mr. Darren Vella, a land-use planner for Burl's Creek, and Mr. Peter Thoma, a land economist and market expert.
Most notably, Mr. Thoma had told the board it was not reasonable to put the Wayhome and Boots & Hearts festivals anywhere else besides Burl's Creek. He came to this realization by both examining other concert festival sites in the province, including Canadian Tire Motor Sports Park in Clarington and Downsview Park in Toronto.
Mr. David Donnelly didn't think Thoma had looked hard – or far – enough. If the majority of the concert goers were coming from points south of the Holland Marsh, he said, why have them travel so far north?
“It would have been actually more convenient for people to come to a festival in King City than it would be all the way up here in Orillia?” Donnelly opined. “That's where they live.”
The cross-examination of Thoma was at times tense, with the land economist often appearing unamused with Donnelly's line of questioning.
Read the news coverage here.
Private Prosecution of Republic Live Continues
Donnelly Law represents a private informant in a private prosecution, now against Republic Live Inc. only, for charges related to the WayHome Music and Arts Festival and Boots and Hearts Music Festival. We appeared in court on Monday, March 14, 2016. Read the Orillia Packet and Times article here. The next scheduled court appearance is April 11, 2016.
Private Member’s Bill to Repeal the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act Defeated on Second Reading
On October 21, 2014, MPP Jack MacLaren (Carleton-Mississippi Mills) introduced Bill 32, the Bob Mackie Act¸ 2014, into the Ontario Legislature. The purpose of Bill 32 is to repeal Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”). The NEPDA was passed in 1973 by the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Bill Davis. The Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”) was approved by Premier Frank Miller’s (Progressive Conservative) Cabinet on June 12, 1985. The NEPDA and NEP “provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as compatible with that natural environment.” (s. 1, NEPDA) The NEP regulates a range of development, from residential housing to aggregate extraction to recreational uses. Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment is a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve, significant landform and working countryside recognized as a significant landscape provincially and internationally.
The NEP is subject to a formal review in 2015. The Niagara Escarpment Commission and Ministry of Natural Resources have begun their preparations for the formal review. The 2015 NEP Review will be coordinated with the provincial review of the Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Review.
Bill 32 is named after Mr. Bob Mackie (now deceased), a past governor of the Ontario Landowners Association and president of the Niagara Landowners Association.
On November 6, 2014, MPP MacLaren (Progressive Conservative) moved second reading of Bill 32, Bill Mackie Act, 2014, repeal the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Act Development the Ontario Legislature. Bill 32 was defeated on second reading by a vote of one for and 44 against, including Conservative MPPs.
OMB Victory on the Oak Ridges Moraine in the Toronto Star
Environmentalists cheer Oak Ridges Moraine decision
Rachel Mendelson
The Toronto Star
February 11, 2014
“Putting large-scale, car-dependent commercial activities in some of the most beautiful and natural country in southern Ontario would have been a big mistake,” said lawyer David Donnelly, who represented local residents at the OMB hearing. “If you believe that King Township is horse country and not paintball country, then this is a big decision for the Oak Ridges Moraine.”
Read the Toronto Star article on this victory achieved by Donnelly Law’s client the Stewards of the Moraine Inc., here.
Donnelly Law Client Takes Action Against Minister's Zoning Order
By Matthew Strader News Reporter, Caledon Enterprise
Published on Monday August 5, 2013
Another group of local residents is looking to take legal action after a Minister’s Zoning Order was given to allow construction for a 180-acre Canadian Tire distribution warehouse in Bolton.
MPP for Brampton Springdale Linda Jeffrey granted a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) on July 18 for the development as requested by Caledon’s council after they approved the application earlier in the month.
On July 24, David Donnelly, of Donnelly Law Barrister and Solicitor, submitted a letter to Minister Jeffrey advising her that he was retained by Palgrave resident Henry Corradini, and he has the support of five other Caledon residents and their families.
Read the full article here:
http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/3919066-more-residents-seek-legal-action/
Land Use Brawl in the Lake Simcoe Watershed
In the placid lakeside town of Georgina, about an hour’s drive north of Toronto, a fierce battle is underway to excise the ghosts of a developer past.
[...]
"I’d love it to be a forest forever, but I’m a realist,” said Georgina Mayor Rob Grossi. “I don’t have the ability as a mayor or a local council to reverse rights that have been granted by some other level of government.”
This deference, however, does not sit well with Toronto environmental lawyer David Donnelly, who describes the debate in Georgina as “an excellent example of what’s wrong with urban planning in Southern Ontario.”
“Whether it’s the influence of developers in municipal politics or a lack of provincial will to protect our vanishing provincially significant wetlands, a very poor form of development . . . is winning out over environmental protection,” he said.
Read the full article here:
Donnelly Law in the Ontario Bar Association's Environews
Read Donnelly Law's article discussing two recent quarry decisions in the Niagara Escarpment in the latest edition of Environews, the newsletter of the Ontario Bar Association Environmental Law Section. The link to the full article follows this exerpt. "Two recent decisions of the Joint Board pursuant to the Consolidated Hearings Act1 create a very confusing legal landscape, with the future direction of development approvals on the Niagara Escarpment hanging in the balance. Very similar facts and arguments in both hearings led to very disparate decisions and a potentially precedent-setting judicial review application by of one of the decisions the Niagara Escarpment Commission ("NEC").
In Walker Aggregates Inc.("Walker"), the proponent applied for approval of a 42 million tonne quarry on the highest point of the Niagara Escarpment in the Township of Clearview, near the village of Duntroon. Donnelly Law represented the Clearview Community Coalition ("CCC"), a citizens’ group opposed to the new quarry. CCC summonsed the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario to provide evidence on the protection of natural heritage features, Ministry of Natural Resources ("MNR") policy, and planning principles.
In Nelson Aggregate Co. ("Nelson"), the proponent applied to quarry approximately 26 million tonnes on Mount Nemo, in the City of Burlington. We represented Sarah Harmer’s citizens’ organization, Protecting Escarpment Rural Land ("PERL").
Both hearings spanned over a year, with hundreds of exhibits, and dozens upon dozens of expert witnesses. In both cases, the NEC, local Conservation Authorities and citizens’ groups opposed the respective quarries. In the case of Nelson, PERL was joined by Halton Region and the City of Burlington in opposition. In both cases, the MNR withdrew its opposition to the development proposals just before the hearings commenced. The MNR’s tacit support of the two quarries sets up a new debate between the NEC and MNR over who has the final word on the protection of the Escarpment.
Read the full article here: http://www.oba.org/en/pdf/sec_news_env_dec12_Quarrying_Donnelly_Sabourin.pdf
A Revolution is Brewing in Green Building and Community Design
By David Donnelly & Lia Magi Published in: Sustainable Builder Magazine, Special Showcase Issue 2011
Ontario is a world leader in setting boundaries for new Greenfield developments. Paradoxically, Southern Ontario is also attracting rapid population growth, requiring the construction of one million new homes that threaten thousands of hectares of prime farmland and wildlife habitat.
With costly and time-consuming land use battles between environmentalists, developers, and municipalities looming on the horizon, our firm was asked to provide a model for new Greenfield development.
Our clients, developers Mattamy Homes and OPDI, adopted a simple threshold challenge: “Environmentalists are very good at telling developers what not to build; let’s try inventing a sustainable community design we can all agree on.”
After one year of stakeholder consultations, we’ve produced a made-in-Ontario new Greenfield Sustainable Building and Community Design Standard (“Greenfield Standard”), with the goal of making it law in 2012. Recent examples, like the Greenbelt, Green Energy Act, and Lake Simcoe Protection Act, show that Ontario has the pedigree for leadership and decisive action to protect the environment and create good, green jobs.
Our proposed new Greenfield Standard is wonderfully simple: 1. Build new suburban communities at an urban standard. That is, use 55 per cent of the land for development, not the current 45 per cent that spreads development out too thinly; 2. Require new units to reduce energy and water consumption by 50 per cent from current standards; 3. Cap development levies on new lots/units at a target density (75 jobs and residents/hectare) and, 4. Extend tax incentive financing to developers that meet the Greenfield Standard thresholds.
European visitors to Ontario are often surprised by the amount of land we use up in creating new communities, for roads, lots, schools, and infrastructure. As visitors leave the lush, compact neighbourhoods of Leslieville, Parkdale, and the Annex, they’re left wondering why we require developers to surrender so much of their land for infrastructure, instead of building to the desired form of many of Toronto’s most successful and up-and-coming neighbourhoods.
Currently, developers must surrender 55 per cent of their land in “new town” plans, leaving only 45 per cent for commercial and residential buildings. This ratio has produced the widely spaced, poorly connected suburban developments that dominate the North American urban landscape. By building at a higher density and more compactly, we can use more land for housing and employment, instead of infrastructure. Building real communities with nearby employment makes for transit-dependent villages (where it’s better to take the bus) rather than transit- supportive villages, where the bus is merely another option.
In addition, simply by shrinking massive road right-of-ways and high-school yards, and cutting back on public infrastructure land consumption and unused greenspace to free more private land for development, developers can off-set most of the additional costs for introducing bio-swales, and district heating and cooling. Ontario’s antiquated habit of building grand boulevards (or heat islands) in residential areas to accommodate two oxen turning will need to be revised; the Greenfield Standard establishes targets for that.
Designing people-friendly streets requires building single-loaded roads adjacent to natural features and parks; reducing block dimensions, where no side is longer than 250 metres to encourage pedestrian activity; reducing road widths that adopt new lane designs and bike lanes; and adding green linkages. In addition, we need to treat clean water as if it were a valuable commodity, because it is.
Less than 50 per cent of the drinking water we use actually requires treating. Treating water is an expensive process, compared to reusing waste water. Watering lawns, putting out fires, and flushing toilets are some of the uses of water that can be better served by grey-water and rain water. The United Nations urges countries to “treat water to no higher quality than needed.” This makes a lot of sense in Ontario, particularly in urbanizing watersheds that do not have access to the Great Lakes.
Ontario’s Green Energy Act provides the right incentives for existing home-owners to “go green,” but does not require new communities to be net-zero energy consumers. Our standard does that, and it requires that LED street- lighting and zero-net energy should be required by 2017, along with making streets oriented north-south and lots east-west, in order to optimize southern solar gain and to minimize western solar heat gain to dwelling units.
At the building lot level, the one-tree-per-family allotment needs to be replaced with a 62-trees-per-hectare (25-trees-per-acre) standard, creating an urban canopy (over narrower roads). Water-guzzling lawns need to be replaced by drought-resistant xeriscaping, with nearby common areas and parks that encourage social interaction, rather than fenced-in isolation.
Locally sourced building materials, like sand and stone, can shrink the carbon footprint of construction, when compared to imported finished stone from China and India.
To level the playing field, so to speak, Greenfield Standard compliant communities should be allowed to finance the “green” elements of the design (e.g. storm water, district heating, and cooling, etc.), by leveraging the enormous long-term savings to the host municipality with tax incentive financing (TIF), and local improvement charges (LIC).
We need to act fast on this new standard. The Greater Toronto Area is consistently ranked in the top three fastest-growing communities in North America (according to the Neptis Foundation). Given our projected growth targets, maintaining the development of the status quo would consume more than 1,000 km2 of prime farmland in a little more than 25 years.
In Ontario, creating a new Greenfield Standard is not an academic exercise for some far-off time target. For example, in the coming weeks, new growth will be allocated in Simcoe County. The province projects the Simcoe Area will grow by nearly 230,000 residents, to a total population of about 667,000 by 2031, in addition to a forecast of 73,300 new jobs by 2031. Simcoe County has maintained Western union online that it needs even more population increases.
The environmentalists of Campaign Lake Simcoe broke the ice by requesting that future population allocation in Simcoe County be awarded only to communities built to a new, higher Greenfield Standard.
There are two additional benefits of proceeding with a Greenfield Standard collaboration.
First, both the development and the environmental communities are in the early stages of a changing of the guard, as the resource- hungry baby boomer generation begins retiring. Now is the perfect time to introduce closer collaboration between the current and the next generation of modern-era builders and environmentalists – groups that have been too long at each other’s throats.
And there’s reason for optimism. On June 1, 2011, our client Environmental Defence and Holcim Canada (and its Canadian affiliate Dufferin Aggregates) released a new green gravel standard for Ontario. Named Sustainable and Environmentally Responsible Aggregate, (nick-named “Green Gravel”), one of the primary purposes of Green Gravel is to offer environmentally conscious municipalities and consumers the ability to leverage their purchasing power and request responsibly sourced aggregate materials, including green cement and ready-mix concrete in new communities.
We can learn from the above example. The private sector and environmentalists can collaborate effectively in the land-use planning, and the community space and building design sectors to create sustainable communities.
Finally, there is another larger benefit to the implementation of the Greenfield Standard and allocating new growth-only in areas that meet or exceed its conditions. Rewarding sustainable development and community design over traditional urban growth decision-making will dispel much of the cynicism and mystery that normally follows the awarding of a new population allocation. These decisions too often appear to be the result of good lobbying or political expediency, not sustainability thinking.
Ontario has a tremendous record on which to build. Successive provincial governments have protected the Oak Ridges Moraine from further development, created a 1.8-million acre protected Greenbelt (the world’s best), and enshrined in the Places to Grow Act an intensification target of 40 per cent new growth in existing urban areas, versus 60 per cent growth in new Greenfield development.
Ontario is the birthplace of post-war, sustainable Greenfield suburban planning and design. Given the enormous development pressure we’re currently facing, it’s time for our builders, citizens, politicians, also environmentalists to lead again. As my wise oysterman friend often reminds me, “We all fish off the same wharf.”
David R. Donnelly, principal of Donnelly Law, is one of Canada’s leading environmental lawyers and advocates for smart growth. He has acted as legal advisor and counsel to Environmental Defence since 2000. Lia Magi is an associate at Donnelly Law, practising in the areas of environmental law, land-use planning, and litigation.
Making the Case for Higher Density, Rather Than Higher Buildings
By David Donnelly, MES LLB
Sustainable Builder Magazine - May 2011
I think that moving towards higher density developments will be the best thing that ever happened to the green building movement in Ontario. The province’s Places to Grow and Greenbelt legislation are slowly setting the stage for developers to make a fundamental choice: do want to I offer a big front yard in Bradford West Gwillimbury, or district heating and cooling in Markham?
Municipalities, stretched for years by the cost and inefficiency of servicing urban sprawl, are slowly but surely catching on and demanding better built communities. The GTA is the fourth most congested urban area in North America, behind Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago, and just ahead of the urban planning nightmare Houston, Texas. As new greenfield homebuyers in the Greater Toronto Area realize their commute will exceed the current seven hour weekly average, the intensification movement is bound to soar.
In the second half of this article, I’ll reveal why I think higher density will help sell greener units and why green builders need to join environmentalists by becoming advocates for much smarter development, or outright greenfield protection. But first, the two major myths about higher density need to be de-bunked.
Myth #1 – People Hate High Density
Quick, where did you go on your honeymoon?
Making higher density attractive to homebuyers is a question of good planning, design and now I would add, green building. Ask your favourite developer or his lawyer where he went for his honeymoon. If it wasn’t an island somewhere, he will likely tell you it was London, Rome or Paris. You can be sure it wasn’t Richmond Hill.
Dissuading the public from the natural tendency to buy land over location is a challenge we all face this decade. The traditional development industry has done a good job of convincing the public that a 650 square foot backyard is worth the commute.
Let’s look a little deeper, because residents of the GTA are embracing higher density living already. The “condo craze” is proceeding unabated. There were 33,615 new homes and condos sold in the GTA last year, up 24 per cent over 2008. Forty-six per cent, or 15,425 of those units, were highrise condo apartment suites with some lofts or stacked units included.
So, if people hate density so much, why are they buying into it at record numbers and spending their honeymoons surrounded by it?
Myth #2 – You Can’t Achieve High Density Without Highrise Development
Skill testing question: which city has higher density, Manhattan or Paris, France?
The answer generally surprises people: it’s about the same when you compare the island of Manhattan to the 20 municipal arrondissements (the parts you wander) of Paris – 27,400 people per square kilometre (ppl/sq km) in Manhattan vs. 25,360 ppl/sq km in Paris. That’s a difference the general public can’t detect.
Manhattan: 59.4 sq km Population: 1.6 million Density: 27,400 ppl/sq km Paris: 86.9 sq km Population: 2.2 million citizens Density: 25,360 ppl/sq km
What makes this comparison so startling is the fact that Paris has achieved its density without any real highrise development. One thing distinguishing Paris from other international cities is its skyline. Except for the Eiffel Tower and one 59-storey office building, there are few buildings taller than 12 storeys (or 37 metres).
This walkable, livable scale came out of the first Paris Building Code, drafted in the 1850’s. The so-called “alignement” law still regulates the building facades of new constructions according to a pre-defined street width. Building height is limited according to the width of the street it will occupy. Taller buildings are generally not approved.
To combat highrise phobia that calls to mind images of American inner city decay, why aren’t we at least debating similar medium scale planning principles? It is simply wrong to say that the GTA does not have enough land for a healthy mix of new development, including new greenfield/sprawl. Most importantly, higher densities do not have to mean highrise development.
The Markham Foodbelt “Density” Controversy Markham Councillors Erin Shapero and Valerie Burke proposed the Markham Foodbelt to protect 20 square kilometres (4,940 acres) of prime Markham farmland, and 14 square kilometres (3,500 acres) of greenspace around the tributaries of the Rouge River. Opponents used the myths of urban decay and higher density living to raise fears of a highrise take-over of Markham, including advertising warning against an “apartment belt”. The Markham Foodbelt proposal was narrowly defeated, allowing an additional 2,470 acres of land to be developed. Despite the Foodbelt defeat, Markham is moving towards higher density living. About 54 per cent of new residential units built in the next 20 years will be apartments or condos, according to town planning director Valerie Shuttleworth. Had the Foodbelt been approved, that figure would have risen to 73 per cent, a increase of only 19 per cent. Built correctly (i.e. without sky-scrapers), this is not a change the public would notice. Markham covers 211 square kilometres, its population is approximately 300,000, and its density is 1,418 ppl/sq km. In other words, Paris is less than half the size of Markham and has over 18 times more density!
By comparison, the City of Toronto covers 641 sq km at a density of 3,972 ppl/sq km. Markham is one-third the size of Toronto, with a little more than 10 per cent of Toronto’s population. In fact, Markham is built at such a low density, it has a very long way to go before it becomes a complete community. Disturbingly, Vaughan is also on course to urbanize even more of its rural land, even though it is a far less dense (870 ppl/sq km) municipality than Markham.
One of the leaders of the anti-Foodbelt faction, Councillor Gordon Langdon, was quoted in the Toronto Star saying, “My children don’t want to buy a condo, they want to buy a house with a piece of grass”. Property value assessments don’t bear this out. The density of the Beach neighbourhood in Toronto is 6,111 ppl/sq km, and there are no highrises in the Beach. The Annex (8,500 ppl/sq km) and other desirable Toronto neighbourhoods (e.g. Forest Hill, Rosedale, etc.) all have similar profiles. While these neighbourhoods can offer grass, they achieve high-densities without highrise development, and perhaps more importantly to their residents, they offer access to shops, restaurants, transit and services, and to vibrant community experiences. So what was all the fuss about? It certainly shouldn’t have been about higher densities in Markham.
Had the new, higher density been planned to a higher, smarter density, and been built to the very highest environmental standards, Markham could have realized a huge benefit in terms of infrastructure efficiency, transit densities, and preservation of prime farmland. New urban intensification projects generally sell themselves on access to shops, restaurants, transit and services, whether they are highrise condos or infill townhouse projects. The trick for green builders is to recognize the added advantages of building in existing urban areas or at higher densities in greenfield projects, and selling consumers on the environmental features, and the walkable, livable communities. Density does not have to be a community killer; just ask any honeymooner.
David Donnelly is the Principal of Donnelly Law and Counsel to Environmental Defence
__
Sustainable Builder Magazine: http://www.sbmagazine.ca/archives/659
Green Power Magazine
http://www.greenpowermagazine.ca/ The introduction of the world-class Green Energy and Economy Act puts Ontario in the lead of a North American green energy revolution. Green Power Magazine focuses on the people making the new policies and projects essential to Ontario's green energy future. The Magazine will be of interest to industry leaders, government, investors, ENGO's, media and the public. Green Power will be launched in July 2010.
Canadian Issues in Environmental Law & Policy
Edited by Allan Greenbaum, Ron Puschak and Alex Wellington. Contributors include David Donnelly who co-authored two articles: "Weak Environmental Law Enforcement in Canada: a Continuing Well-kept Secret" and "Property Rights in Canada: Ontario's Greenbelt Act".
Canadian Iss
ues in Environmental Law and Policy is a stimulating multidisciplinary collection of classic, recent and original readings on environmental regulation, litigation and assessment in Canada. The contributors represent a wide range of scholarly and professional expertise, substantive concerns, and points of view. Topics include the regulatory system in Canada, constitutional and jurisdictional issues, policy instruments (including “command and control” regulations, green taxes, and cap-and-trade schemes), environmental assessment, standard setting, and enforcement of environmental law in Canada. More than one third of the readings concern topical controversies around science, risk, health, and the precautionary principle, and related issues, such as pesticides, genetically modified organisms, and drinking water borne hazards (such as the pathogens that killed seven and sickened thousands in Walkerton, Ontario).
The readings explore how issues in environmental law and policy (such as who should bear what burden of proof in litigation and regulatory risk assessment) turn on fundamental political questions about the proper relationship between government, business, and civil society, and the tensions among competing conceptions and rankings of security, liberty, equality, and democracy. The collection reflects a wide range of views in hopes of engaging readers to take part in the discussions on this crucially important and urgent issue of our society today — the environment.
An invaluable resource for anyone interested in environmental law and its social impact, Canadian Issues in Environmental Law and Policy helps readers to appreciate that the law pertaining to the environment is not fixed and static but, rather, is a set of social practices engaged in and carried out by many people performing distinct roles, including judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, policy-makers, and politicians.
(http://www.captus.com/Information/catalogue/book.asp?Book+Number=974)