STOP SPRAWL AND SAVE THE OCEANS

With the horror unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico - we all need to envision a healthier sustainable future. Time is crucial. Sprawl in our cities is the result of an oil dependent addiction.

Startford inherited an intact downtown from visionaries of the past. It is our responsibility to hold on to this important asset and past it on to the future.

We need policies that:

* restrict the size of parking lots on the periphery of our city

*require parking lots to be located away from the street scape - possibly behind the box store

* require the store to plant trees and a green-scape in front of their store

*require Victorian style architecture to fit the character of our city

What other ideas do you have to prevent any more sprawl in Stratford? And Preserve Beauty....

Envisioning Stratford

From the online environmental magazine www.grist.org there is an article "10 ways to kick the offshore-oil habit".

Number 5 on the list addresses sprawl: 5. Smarter land use Congress could direct (and help fund) local government efforts to update zoning and land-use regulations in ways that encourage compact development compatible with transit service and friendly to walkers and bikers. (Obama's Partnership for Sustainable Communities is already taking steps in this direction.)Read about Smart Growth. The principles of Smart Growth were presented to the OMB chairman by citizen participant Sheila Clarke. Stop sprawl in Stratford and help the planet.

A Huge Thank You To Our Lawyers

Our team of lawyers did a wonderful job protecting Stratford's local democratic planning rights. Lawyers for the City of Stratford: J. Matera, E. Costello and T. Halinski were clear, precise and to the crucial point in their defense of Stratford and OPA 10. For the City Centre Committee: M. Bowman and S. Stein were very effective in defending the future health and well being of Stratford's downtown heart and core.

THANK YOU

View the entire OMB decision by Colin Hefferon on The City of Stratford website:

http://www.city.stratford.on.ca/documents/press_releases/PL071013-May-18-2010.pdf

Selections From OMB Decision: Page 36 and 37

A key element of the City-adopted version of OPA 10 is the concept of “healthy interaction and balance” between and among what Council envisions to be a three-node commercial structure. From east to west, then, the regional-serving commercial structure of Stratford is composed of the existing Ontario Street East Commercial Area, the Downtown Core itself and the West End Commercial Area. Mr. Goldberg and the other experts supporting the Avonwood proposal reject completely the concept of a balanced 3-node commercial structure along an east-west axis. As noted, Avonwood sees a 2-node commercial structure – one part is centered on the current Ontario Street East Commercial Area and the second on the Downtown Core. ...

Again, the evidence from the parties represents two diametrically opposed visions of appropriate land use planning policy. The Goldberg Version of OPA 10 reacts to what may be termed the imperative of the marketplace. Confirming the land use planning opinions of Messrs. Clarkson and Goldberg, Avonwood’s retail market expert witness, Mr. Parsons, told the Board that the Ontario Street East Commercial Area exists primarily because it’s where the market determined it should be. ...

The Board was told that the City-adopted OPA 10, on the other hand, takes a pro-active approach to development applications. It directs development (most especially commercial retail) to where Council has determined it will best serve the

public interest, which is consistent with the policy-led approach to land use planning advocated by the PPS (Part 1, Preamble). The City’s expert witnesses contend that the Ontario Street East Commercial Area has succeeded as a shopping area because shopping centres and large format stores were permitted to develop there during the

past few decades, which has been an era of unprecedented growth in disposable income and automobile ownership. ...

After consideration of all the evidence, I find that the City-adopted OPA 10 will protect the planned function of the Downtown Core by limiting the amount of lands designated to commercial retail development in the Ontario Street East Commercial Area to what currently exists. This has been Council’s policy for decades. The Board was told that the result of this policy direction has been the preservation of downtown Stratford, one of the few smaller city centres that have managed to survive the changes in contemporary shopping practices including the introduction in the past 10 years of “power centres” composed of multiple large format retail stores.

Colin Hefferon

Selections From OMB Decision: Page 35 and 36

I find that the language of the Goldberg Version of OPA 10 provides little direction as to Council’s intent vis-à-vis the planned function of the Downtown Core than does the City-adopted version of OPA 10. Adherence to policies that protect the planned function of the Downtown Core is essential to the long-term prosperity of the City and therefore worthy of whatever protection or assistance can reasonably be afforded (as required by PPS policies 1.7.1.b and 1.7.1.f). In my view, and in the view of the vast majority of the participants and lay witnesses who testified before this Board,

anything that risks the health of the Shakespeare Festival – including threats to the City’s image as “the Festival City” – must therefore be avoided. After consideration of the information made available to it and clearly mindful of the local insights of its constituent members, Council has determined that a large format department store use on the Avonwood lands poses considerable risk to the planned function of the Downtown Core and thus considerable risk to the Festival itself and has endorsed policies that protect the planned function of the Downtown Core. I find on the evidence that this City policy represents good planning.

Colin Hefferon

Selections From OMB Decision: Page 34

Mr. Butler also testified that it is a key principle of land use planning in Ontario that industrial lands should only be allowed to be removed from a municipal inventory under what the 1993 Official Plan describes as “substantive or extenuating” circumstances. ... Mr. Butler testified that preserving industrial land for future industrial uses makes a far greater

contribution to the overall long term well-being of a community than does Mr. Clarkson’s approach, which in Mr. Butler’s opinion, only offers reduced potential for land use conflict with existing residential. ...

After consideration of the evidence and the submissions of Council, I find that the Goldberg Version of OPA 10 does not further the intent of the 1993 Official Plan and is not consistent with the policies of the PPS. I find, on the other hand, that the Sorensen version of OPA 10 furthers the intent of the 1993 Official Plan and is consistent with the provisions of the PPS specifying a “policy-led” approach to planning.

Colin Hefferon

Selections From OMB Decision: Page 33 and 34

Second: the City-adopted version of OPA 10 recommends a policy-led approach to commercial retail planning. It would, for example, direct new large format retail to the West End Commercial Area. The Goldberg Version of OPA 10, on the other hand, suggests a market-centred or application-driven approach to planning for future retail commercial development in the City. ...

The land use planning witness retained by the CCC, Mr. Butler, expressed deep concern with Mr. Goldberg’s recommended cautious, application-driven approach as it would apply to the Ontario Street East Commercial Area and particularly to the Avonwood lands. He contended that if the Goldberg version of OPA 10 were approved, there would be no effective means of controlling the loss of the several remaining smaller parcels of industrial land on the Avonwood site within the City limits to commercial uses and of discouraging speculation in the Industrial Area (including the F.A.G. and Samsonite plants) along the south side of Ontario Street east of Romeo Street. ...

With respect to the second key concern, the Board finds Mr. Butler’s evidence more persuasive than that of either Mr. Clarkson or Mr. Dragicevic. In Mr. Butler’s opinion, industrial-type jobs create wealth in a community, whereas retail jobs are only

created where wealth already exists. In my view, this takes on added significance when considered in light of Stratford’s motto, “industry and arts”. This view was also put forward in evidence by one of the participants, Ms L. Walker-Fitzpatrick.

Colin Hefferon