APPENDIX B

Jeremy Vink

From: Jeremy VinkSent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:18 AMTo: ‘Mama Huber’Subject: RE: proposed official plan amendment

Ma rn a

Thank you for your email.

The owner of 1310 would like their property included in the settlement in order to develop the lands for residentialpurposes, in part suggesting that it could also provide a solution to the Crowsfoot intersection with a road re-alignmentfor Crowsfoot Rd.

Staff have in the past, and still note, that for various reasons it would appear unlikely that staff could support thisrequest for a number of reasons and that it is not consistent with our approach to rationalization. However, it does notstop people from making requests, and as the request has been made it must be considered in the public process (i.e.,the upcoming public meeting), and ultimately staff must make a recommendation to Council on the matter.

As stated, at this point of time staff for a number of reasons do not anticipate being able to support this rationalization,however, I cannot pre-judge the final recommendation and ultimate decision of Council.

Jeremy Vink MCP RPP

Senior Planner

Township of Woolwich

WOOLWICHJOWN SHIP

From: Mama Huber [mailto:’Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:04 AMTo: Jeremy VinkSubject: proposed official plan amendment

Jeremy,My name is Mama Huber and I am the owner of 1305 Sawmill Rd.Could you advise me of the intent of the owner at 1310 Sawmill Rd regarding the request to include a portion of his landin the Crowsfoot settlement?

I have noted that the proposal request is not recommended by your staff. Our agreement or disagreement woulddepend totally on the intended purpose of the inclusion.Thank youMama Huber

1

Wilhelm & Mama Huber

1305 Sawmill Rd., RR#1

Waterloo, Ontario

N2J 4G8

February 2, 2016

Township of Woolwich

Planning Department

Re: Crowsfoot Corner Application

To whom it may concern,

We would like to express our opinion and make known our concerns regarding the application to have aportion of land at 1310 Sawmill Rd. and the Crowsfoot included in the settlement of Crowsfoot Corner.

Although we are not opposed to the land owner building two or three homes on larger acreage lots,although it would be shame to lose more Al farmland, we would be opposed to any intent to buildintensively on the said lands. In addition, we would be opposed to having the Crowsfoot realigned to exitonto Sawmill Rd. at 1310 Sawmill.

We have lived here for almost nine years, and in that time we have seen the traffic load on Sawmill Rd.increase substantially. It is difficult at times to exit our own driveway as sight lines at this point arelimited, and traffic is always moving faster than the 70 km posted speed limit. It is our opinion thathaving an intersection of Crowsfoot and Sawmill Rd at 1310 Sawmill Rd. directly across from our homeand driveways could result in more than a few accidents. It is our observation that the traffic comingdown Crowsfoot almost exclusively turns right onto Sawmill heading towards Conestogo and the trafficfrom Katherine St. turns right or left almost equally.

We feel that dividing the traffic load of Katherine/CrowsfootlSawmill intersection into two intersectionswill by no means result in a decrease in congestion at the existing intersection as anyone making a leftturn from Katherine St. will still be delayed by traffic streaming down Sawmill.

We understand that the planning committee does not recommend the proposed request, and although wehave no knowledge of their reasoning, we support their decision in denial of the request as a result of ourabove expressed opinions and concerns.

Thank you for your attention to our letter.

Wilhelm & Mama Huber

WeirFoulds..;

January 26, 2016T:416-947-5039ctzekas@weirfoulds.com

File 16894.00001

VIA E-MAIL / JWNK.WOOLWICHCA

Jeremy Vink, Senior PlannerTownship of WoolwichP0 Box 15824 Church Street WestElmira, ON N3B 2Z6

Dear Mr. Vink:

Re: 687624 Ontario Limited (2069 Shantz Station), Township of Woolwich andRationalization Settlement Boundaries as Part of the Scoped Official Plan Review

I am writing to you on behalf of 687624 Ontario Limited, which owns the property at 2069Shantz Station Road. I have received your information regarding the proposed Official PlanAmendment dealing with the rationalization of settlement boundaries, specifically as it relates tolands in the Rural Settlement Area of Shantz Station.

I have had the opportunity to review the proposed settlement boundaries related to ShantzStation with our client and we have reviewed the map which was included in the informationpackage. In summary, our client supports the removal of the proposed lands, including thoseexpropriated from it by the MTO, if a similar amount of land is added to the Shantz Station RuralSettlement Area in the north-east quandrant of Shantz Road-Highway 7 intersection. Our clientbelieves that this quadrant must have a certain amount of land designated “Settlement Area” tofacilitate its development as part of the Shantz Station community. Our client would oppose anyeffort to “rationalize” the boundaries of the settlement area in a way which depletes the amountof designated land in this quadrant.

Please be advised I will not attending the meeting on February 9th, however, I would appreciateif this letter could be given to the Councillors, as our client’s formal comments to the proposed

T: 416-365-1110 F: 416-365-18764100-66 wellington Street West, PD Box 35, TD Bank Tower, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. M5K 187

_________________________________

www.weirfoulds.com

VVëirFoulds

Official Plan Amendment. I would also appreciate if Paul F Puopolo (paulpolocorpinc.comand I can be placed on the mailing list for any future correspondence

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me.

Yours truly,

\_. .-.‘--•

C. J. Tzekas

CJT:ms

cc; clientsP. Puopolo(via e-mail)

8900066 2

2

Jeremy Vink

From: al HarrisSent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:04 PMTo: Jeremy VinkSubject: rationalization of settlement boundaries - Township of Woolwich

Dear Mr. Vink, would you please forward my concerns to council about the request to change the official plan inregards to the vacant lands at the end of St. Boniface Drive.

1) - although the total area is relatively small, it is vitally important to maintain land suitable for agriculture to remainas such. Even if it is not presently being farmed.Every year over 2 500 hectares of prime farmland in southern Ontario is being covered by streets. (Globe and Mail,June 2001). Once a parcel of land has been developed it will never be turned back into farmland. With a smaller

supply of productive land, the price of food will be forced higher as demand will also increase. This also makes usmore dependant on foreign and often unreliable food sources.

2) - land speculation is a risky business. If the owner of the vacant land wishes to make a profit he/she shouldpurchase land where the official plan has designated development is to take place (i.e. Breslau).

3) - Safety concerns. The only traffic along St. Boniface Drive are the few residents that live on St. Boniface Driveand Matthias Crescent. With a new unwarranted housing development, the increase traffic flow would present ahigher probability of a child or adult being struct by a vehicle.

4) - Quality of life. I don’t know of any other community in which the residents wave to each passing car orpedestrian. This segment of Maryhill is unique and special, and it deserves to be preserved.There already is another housing development on the other side of Maryhill road, and this may have given thespeculative land holder the impetus to put forward the change to the official plan.To negatively change the quality of life for a number of people just so one can profit is wrong.

Thanking you in advance,Al Harris

1

iijMHBCPLANNINGURBAN DESIGN& LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE

KITCHEN ERWOODBRIDGELONDONKINGSTONBARRIEBURLINGTON

February 2, 2016

Jeremy Vink, MCIP, RPPTownship of Woolwich,Engineering and Planning ServicesBox 1 58, 24 Church Street West,Elmira,ON N3B2Z6

Dear Mr. Vink

RE: Proposed Official Plan Amendment — Rationalization of Settlement Boundaries — O’NeillProperty (Part Lot 106, German Company Tract, Township of Woolwich)OUR FILE 1323A

We are writing on behalf of our client, Mr William O’Neill, who owns property on Victoria Street North(Highway #7) to the west of Shantz Station Road (Regional Road 30), legally described as Part of Lot 106,German Company Tract in the Township of Woolwich (see attached plan).

We received notification that the Township of Woolwich is undertaking a rationalization of settlementboundaries as part of a scoped Official Plan Amendment. This rationalization includes proposedalterations to the current Shantz Station settlement boundary. The current proposal for Shantz Stationincludes the removal of a total of 5.06 hectares of land within the current settlement boundary, including1.4 hectares of designated Urban Area (zoned Ri) and 3.66 hectares of designated Commercial Area(zoned C3). It appears that the lands to be removed are primarily as a result of the by the Ministry ofTransportation (MTO) land acquisition for the Highway 7 expansion from Kitchener to Guelph. Theproposal also includes the rationalization (addition) of a 2.78 hectares portion to the east of the currentShantz Station settlement boundary contiguous to the existing Commercial Area.

It is our understanding that the addition of 2.78 hectares east of the current settlement boundary is tooffset the Commercial Area lost as a result of the Highway 7 expansion. We recommend that the loss oflands zoned Ri within the current settlement boundary should also be offset in Shantz Station with theaddition of a 1.46 hectare portion of the lands owned by Mr O’Neill and 0.65 hectares of land owned bythe MTO between the current settlement boundary and the O’Neill property.

The rational for the subject lands and the MTO lands to be rationalized in the settlement boundary is asfollows:

200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE I KITCHENER I ONTARIO! N2B 3X9 /T 519 576 3650/ F 19 5760121 I WWW.MIIBCPLAN.COM

• The subject lands and the MTO lands are contiguous to the current settlement boundary and tolands designated Urban Area and zoned Ri;

,. The addition of the subject lands and MTO lands will “round-out” the settlement area boundary;

• The addition of the subject lands and the MTO lands will offset the loss of 1.4 hectares ofdesignated Urban Area lost as a result of the Highway 7 expansion within the Shantz Stationarea; and

• The proposed addition of 2.1 hectares of Urban Area combined with the additional 2.78 hectaresof Commercial Area as currently proposed (total of 4.88 hectares) does not result in a netincrease of development lands within the Shantz Station settlement area (as a total of 5.06hectares is proposed to be removed).

Given the foregoing we kindly request the Township’s consideration of adding our client’s land (inaddition to MTO’s land) to the settlement area boundary.

Please provide us with notification of any future meetings or decisions with respect to this Official PlanAmendment. We would be pleased to discuss our comments at your convenience.

Yours truly,

MHBC

Pierre J. Chauvin, MA, MCIP, RPP

Attach

Cc: William O’Nei//

2

Pro

po

sed

Bo

un

dar

yR

atio

nal

izat

ion

O’N

eill

Pro

per

tyP

art

Lot

106.

Ger

man

Com

pany

Tra

ct(G

eogr

aphi

cT

owns

hip

ofW

ater

loo)

Tow

nisb

pof

Woo

lwic

hR

egio

nof

Wat

erlo

o

Leg

end

O’N

eill

Lan

ds

MTO

Rig

htof

Way

[]S

tian

tzS

tati

onS

ettl

emen

tB

ound

ary

Urb

anL

ands

tobe

Rem

oved

from

Set

tlem

ent

Bou

ndar

y(A

rea:

±1.

4ha

)

Lan

dsP

rop

ose

dto

beA

dded

toS

ettl

emen

tB

ound

ary

(Are

a:±2

.1ha

)

MT

OL

ands

0.65

haO

’Nei

llL

ands

1.46

haT

otal

±2.1

ha

‘Com

mer

oal

Are

a’L

ands

tob

eR

emov

edfr

omS

ettl

emen

tB

ound

ary

(Are

a:±3

.6ha

)

‘Com

mer

aal

Are

aL

ands

tobe

Add

edto

Settl

emen

t Bou

ndar

y(A

rea

±2.8

ha)

It..

-atow

aies

a.o

app

tox

imat

ean

d0(1

001db.

earn

ed

byna

rvey

.

1I,)

&R

*0

00(

Oxe

OC

xd

dh

e±

y(0

0C

r).

2010

t01.0

.002

Fx

Qb

xx

ayA

JQ,n

.tT

,.oao

ofl

aIIe

,,S

rwerT

e.n

bI

00ad

yR

ope’

)Ix

M,.x0(

Ow

1x00n1

Eeo

oen

nb

IO

wxx

rex,

oI,I

(2000.

ISall

Cre

epL

aetd

.U

20

l2.O

wIx

0

OA

TS:

Feb

err

ey

I20

16

SCA

LE

12,

5(2)

RL

E13

23A

OR

AW

N:

DO

SI

0

Ministry of Transportation Ministère des Transports r.Engineering Office Bureau du genieCorridor Management Section Section de gestion des couloirs routiersWest Region Region de lOuest L—’ ritaric659 Exeter Road 659, chemin ExeterLondon, Ontario N6E 1 L3 London (Ontario) N6E 1 L3Telephone: (519) 873-4597 Téléphone: (519) 873-4597Facsimile: (519) 873-4228 Telecopleur: (519) 873-4228

February 3, 2016

Township of WoolwichEngineering and Planning Services DepartmentBox 15824 Church Street WestElmira, OntarioN3B 2Z6

Attention: Jeremy Vink, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner

RE: Submission No.: Official Plan AmendmentRural Rationalizations (Shantz Station)Applicant: Township of Woolwich,Lot 84, GCTCounty of WellingtonTownship of Woolwich - Highway 7

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has completed a review of the Rationalization ofSettlement Boundaries, specifically as it applies to the rural settlement boundary of ShantzStation. The amendment has been considered in accordance with the requirements ofMTO’s highway access control policies and the Public Transportation and HighwayImprovement Act (PTHIA). The following outlines our comments.

Highway 7 in the vicinity of the subject lands is classified as a 2B — Arterial Highway underthe Ministry of Transportation Highway Access Management Classification System. Accessspacing standards have been established for both signalized and un-signalized public roadand commercial / private access. The current desirable spacing between two consecutivemunicipal roads and/or commercial I private accesses is 1600m.

In addition to the above-noted spacing standards, MTO also has minimum standards whenproperty owners wish to sever their lands. For a Class 2B — Arterial Highway, the minimumperseverance frontage requirement is 50Cm to qualify for a severance.

Given the above, it would appear as though the subject lands would not qualify for a new Unsignalized or signalized public road and commercial I private access. Further, the subjectproperty would not meet MTO’s requirements for a severance.

Noting the above-mentioned limiting factors, this subject property may not be suitable for theuses intended, as access for any uses other than the current zoning will not be permitted.

-2-

ODtion:

If this amendment is adopted, MTO would insist on a holding provision, stipulating that nodevelopment could take place on the subject lands until such time that Highway 7 New hasbeen constructed, and existing Highway 7 transferred to the local road authority. Wordingwould have to be agreed upon by the approval authority, local road authority, and MTQ.Without the holding provision, this rationalization will have in effect, created a land-lockedparcel.

The approval authority should be reminded that the subject lands are within the Ministry ofTransportation permit control area. MTO’s statutory authority for its permit control system,including highway access control, is set out in Sections 31 and 38 of the PublicTransportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA). MTO review, approval and permitsare required prior to any development taking place.

We would appreciate receiving a copy of your Council’s decision on this application for ourrecords.

Yours truly,

John MorriseyCorridor Management PlannerCorridor Management SectionWest Region, London

APPENDIX C

j’ - ‘rZ

February 2, 2016 Project No: 12120

Township of WoolwichEngineering & Planning Services24 Church Street WestElmira, OntarioN3B2Z6

Attention: Jeremy Vink, MCIP, RPPSenior Planner

Dear Mr. Vink:

Re: Proposed Official Plan AmendmentRationalization of Settlement Boundaries as part of theScoped Official Plan ReviewSt. Jacobs LandTownship of Woolwich

Further to our recent discussions and on behalf of our clients in St. Jacobs, Richard Frede,1604964 Ontario Inc. (Mike GlUes and Richard Frede) and 650207 Ontario Ltd. (2 separateparcels owned by Stuart Martin), I submit the following comments for your consideration aspart of the Rationalization of Settlement Boundaries within the Township of Woolwich.

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LOCATION

GSP Group represents a group of property owners in the northwest quadrant of St. Jacobs(the “Subject Land”) as illustrated on the attached map. The properties are generallylocated in the area of Northside Drive and Hawkesville Road (both north and south side ofHawkesville Road). There are a total of four properties and they are owned Richard Frede.1604964 Ontario Inc. (Mike Gilles and Richard Frede) and two (2) parcels owned by650207 Ontario Ltd. (Stuart Martin). The Subject Land is comprised of approximately 36hectares (89 acres).

PLANNING I URBAN DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

72 Victoria Street South. Suite 201. Kitchener. ON N2G 4Y9 519 569 8883

162 Locke Street South, Suite 200, Hamilton. ON L8P 4A9 905 572 7477 YEARSgspgroup.Ca 1995 -2015

Richard Frede owns approximately 0.9 hectares (2.2 acres) at 118 Northside Drive and thisland is within Settlement Area in the Township of Wooiwich Official Plan (the “OP”). Thetwo properties north of Hawkesville Road (i.e. 1604964 Ontario Inc. and 650207 OntarioLtd.) are situated between the Settlement Area in the OP and the Countryside Line in theRegion of Waterloo Official Plan (the “ROP”).

1604964 Ontario Inc. owns a property adjacent to 118 Northside Drive property which isapproximately 17.8 hectares (44 acres) in size. A considerable portion of the 1604964Ontario Inc. land will be protected from development given it is part of a Core Environmentalfeature as shown on Map 3 of the ROP.

650207 Ontario Ltd. owns approximately 9.7 hectares (24 acres) which has frontage onHawkesville Road and lies immediately south of the 1604964 Ontario Inc. property.

650207 Ontario Ltd. also has land on the south side of Hawkesville Road which containsan active farm operation. This property is approximately 7.6 hectares (19 acres) in size.Approximately 3 hectares (7.6 acres) of the 7.6 hectare (19 acre) property area lies withinthe Settlement Area in the OP.

BACKGROUND

Following the release of the initial Rationalization report (E39-2012) in June 2012, I metwith you, along with our clients, on August 3, 2012, requesting consideration for the SubjectLand to be included the rationalization exercise. Subsequently, the rationalization exercisewas put on hold at that time pending the resolution of appeals to the ROP.

Since meeting with you in 2012, the ROP has been approved by the 0MB and Phase 2 ofthe Valleyview subdivision was draft approved in mid-2015. The staff report (E28-2015 —

May 26, 2015) indicates overall build out of the \/alleyview subdivision potentially by 2018.Phase 2 of the Valleyview subdivision is with the St. Jacobs Settlement Area, and formsthe remaining portion of the area identified in Area 3 of the Township Official Plan.

Section 7.17.16 (d) of the Township of Woolwich Official Plan states, ‘The Township shallmaintain a minimum three-year inventory of Draft Approved and Registered Plans fordevelopment purposes in the St. Jacobs Settlement Plan.” Further, Section 7.17.16.1 (e)states, “The Township shall maintain a minimum ten-year supply of lands designated forresidential purposes in the St. Jabobs Settlement Plan.” Accordingly given the proposedtimeline for build-out of the Valleyview subdivision, the Subject Land would be the next

Rationalization of Settlement Boundaries (OPA) — St. Jacobs Land GSP Group I 2February 2, 2016

logical area for development within St. Jacobs given its location within the CountrysideLine.

The land north of Hawkesville Road is difficult to farm given the proximity to the currentresidential uses within the Settlement Area and size/location of new barns would be limited,if not totally restricted.

REQUEST FOR CONSIDERA11ON

The Places to Grow (the “P2G”, the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (the “PPS”) and theROP focus on discouraging urban sprawl and building stronger and vibrant communities.To implement these goals, there are a number of common objectives in each of thesedocuments, which include:

• Encourage development that contributes in the planning of complete communities,

• Provide for transit-oriented development and/or walkable communities, with lessdependency on the automobile,

• Promote intensification in the existing urban areas and meeting certain prescribeddensity and growth targets within Greenfield areas in a compact and efficient form,

• Develop on full municipal services, and

• Protect, conserve and enhance the valuable natural resources of land, air andwater.

While it is our understanding that the Region of Waterloo is expected to initiate a review ofthe ROP in 2018, we would respectfully request consideration by the Township to bringsome or all of the Subject Land into the Settlement Area of St. Jacobs at this time. Webelieve the inclusion on the Subject Land within the Settlement Area through the currentrationalization exercise will assist in meeting the above-noted objectives.

Based on our review of the public meeting notice and related mapping, approximately 3hectares (7.6 acres) is proposed to be removed from the 650207 Ontario Ltd. property onthe south side of Hawkesville Road (55 Hawkesville Road). This 3 hectare/7.6 acre arealies within the Settlement Area. We note that a 0.89 (2.19 acre) parcel at 47 HawkesvilleRoad is proposed to be added. Further, we note that the land is proposed to be added tothe north of the existing Home Hardware Store Limited land (approximately 20hectares/49,4 acres), while other land is proposed removed along Sawmill Road and ArthurStreet South (approximately 24 hectares/59 acres). As it appears at this stage thatemployment uses will remain a strong focus of the rationalization exercise in St. Jacobs, it

RatonaIization of SetUernent Boundaries (OPA) — St. Jacobs Land GSP Group I 3February 2, 2016

is our opinion there continues to be a need for available residential land to support thedevelopment of the overall community. Given the presence of a significant and importantemployer to the area and Region (i.e. Home Hardware) and other local businesses, it isimperative to have a balance of available residential land to support employment within St.Jacobs.

Given the draft approval of the Phase 2 of the Valleyview subdivision and the expectedbuild-out of these lands by 2018, it would appear prudent to consider adding some or allSubject Land through current rationalization exercise. The inclusion of the Subject Landfor future residential development would assist in providing a balance of availableresidential land to complement the existing and future growth of employment within StJacobs to achieve a complete and walkable community.

While we recognize the limited servicing capacity in St. Jacobs based on much of thecapacity being taken up by Phase 2 of the Valleyview subdivision, it is our understandingthat in the interim that the Region will continue to reduce infiltration and inflow into thewasterwater treatment system and Implement water efficiency measure to safely maximizethe existing sewage system. In the medium to long term, the St. Jacobs WastewaterTreatment Plant will ultimately be decommissioned and flows transfered to the VVaterlooWastewater Treatment Plant after 2024. Based on preliminary civil engineering review byour client, it is possible to gravity feed a portion of the Subject Land into the currentwastewater system based on capacity being available. Sanitary sewers and water arecurrently available on Northside Drive.

Based on the above, we would respectfully request consideration for some or all of theSubject Land being brought into the St. Jacobs Settlement Area for residential use throughthe current rationalization exercise being completed by the Township. It is in my intentionto expand on some of the points raised in this letter at the public meeting. Our clients,along with myself, will be in attendance at the public meeting on February 9.

We would appreciate being added to the mailing list for any future meetings or planningdecisions related to this matter. Should you have any questions in the meantime or requireany additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Alsoif you would like to discuss the matter in person, I would be happy to do so.

Rationahzation of Settlement Boundaries (OPA) — St. Jacobs Land GSP Group I 4February 2, 2016

Yours very tru’y,

GSP Group nc.

// /

.1 ‘- -

Hugh Handy, MCP, RPPAssociate

cc Mike GillesRichard FredeStuart Martin

attach

Rationahzabon of Settlement Boundatles (OPA) — St. Jacobs Land GSP Group I 5February 2, 2016

ST.JACOBSLAND HOLDINGS

Scale I 4000 IFebruary 2, 2016

.PrcectNo. 12120

LCE ROeOfl &Wcano onm mwpeg W Drawn By: SL

Ji

Jeremy Vink

From: Brandon.Sloan @ kitchener.caSent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 9:39 AMTo: Jeremy VinkCc: John Scarfone; Alain.Pinard @ kitchener.ca; JLubczynski@regionofwaterloo.caSubject: Woolwich Boundary Rationalization_BSAttachments: Woolwich Boundary Rationalization_BSpdf

Jeremy,Further to our discussion, attached is a letter from Kitchener Planning regarding some questions we have of theproposed OPA for settlement boundary rationalization in Woolwich. The activity in Breslau is of interest and should anycommercial proposals be made that are more regional-scale we would like input.

Thanks.

Brandon Sloan

Manager, Long Range & Policy f Planning Division I City of Kitchener519-741-2200 x7648 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 I brandon.sloan©kitchener.ca

1

JAN 2 I 2i3 U

January25, 2016

Township of WoolwichEngineering and Planning ServicesBox 15824 Church Street WestElmira, OntarioN3B2Z6

Attention: Jeremy Vink, MCIP, RPPSenior Planner

I received your “Proposed Official Plan Amendment” and being a St. Jacobs resident Iam very concerned with the proposed boundary adjustment of the 20 ha that HomeHardware Stores Limited has submitted. This portion of land is close to the nature areaof the millrace. Being a frequent walker of the millrace I know this is a home for wildlifesuch as birds, beavers, mink, deer, etc.

If this area is considered for industrial development it is not in the best interest of ourwildlife friends. I do hope that much consideration will be taken before their homes havebeen destroyed by cutting down the trees and digging up the land.

I do hope my letter will be carefully considered on behalf of both the millrace walkersand the wildlife of St. Jacobs.

Regards,

Linda Kraak

1%

ç)

cr

‘S

\\

-‘-i

.i;\:

—‘

‘c

\

.‘*

1

Q

Cv’

CD

I

I

IIIi

Current Settlement Boundary

ationaIizatiOfl

Proposed to be added

Proposed to be Removed

MAP3

(

egend

k

SS

U-

U

Ac

k

c

c%

%

%____..“

cN

U’

cxI-..

!%.\

cc

c

‘•4—

--

.N0

----

c

1\

1E

Th

Th

Z\

j

I)

v,

V•)

—-j

‘‘\

ft

—elmira 20 Maitins Ln, Elmira

Jj machine Ontario Canada N3B 2A1

industries inc. Toll free 01453Fax (519) 669-8331

1LIIIYI,1rX

FEB 022016

February 2, 2016

Township of Woolwich24 Church St. W.Elmira, ONN3B 2Z6

Subject: Rationalization of Settlement BoundariesAttn: Township Council

The settlement boundary is highly relevant, both for employment land and for Arthur St. traffic.Although this rationalization may not be about Elmira’s Traffic troubles (1) or about Truck Restrictions (2)

these are vital issues that should not be excluded from the discussion. Why would they be?

Option lB should be considered over option 1A because it achieves the benefits of 1A and more. Forexample it may allow a north/south local road that connects the industrial areas. Moreover it maysee work on the Elmira Bypass proceed sooner rather than later. Similarly it may allow the bypass toproceed in stages. Finally, it’s simply a more continuous and “rational” eastern town boundary.

Township council should take their time on this “one time” decision.

Sincerely,

/1 // / -.--——

Philip McKeePresident

(1) CTV News, Kitchener, January 8, 2016(2) Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Planning Works Committee, Media Release, August 7, 2015

W viallenstein:,1VaCU.Ufl1 pUflipI

GSP3I-APIN( CREAT CC)M’1UNITFS

January 18, 2016 File No: 15152.10 and

Township of Woolwich File No.: 16004.1024 Church Street WestP.O. Box 158Elmira, ONN3B 2Z6

Attri: Mr. Jeremy Vink

Dear Mr. Vink:

R_fopsed RationalizatiQn O,P.A.

Thank you for meeting with me on January 1 2rh to provide an update on your proposedRationalization O.P.A.

On behalf of Thomasfield Homes Limited we submit this request for your consideration as itrelates for your consideration as it relates to the Breslau Urban Area.

As you know Thomasfield owns 28.3ha of land south of the Metrolinx rail corridor that hashistorically been part of the Breslau Settlement Area (B.S.A.)

It is not anticipated that this land will contribute to the development of the Breslau community.It may at some future date be useful as a second access to the future GO Transit Station siteplanned for the north side of the rail corridor. It also may be an area where a future linkbetween Greenhouse/Kramp Road is extended to connect with the village area of Breslauwest of Fountain Street. This is of course subject to an Environmental Assessment and as apublic use does not require the land to be designated within the B.S.A.

Thomasfield proposes that this land is available for re-designation.

Thomasfield has recently acquired the Rutherford property’ in north Breslau. The Rutherfordproperty was previously identified to be part of your Rationalization C.P.A.

The ‘Rutherford property’ is a 10.8ha site of which 2.86ha is within the B.S.A. boundary.

We propose that an additional 4.2ha be added to the B.S.A.

Thorriasfield also owns a 15.Sha site in Part of Lot 107 north of Victoria Road. They requestthat this parcel also be added to the B.S.A. through this process. The north limit is the newHighway 7 right-ofway and the Countryside Line in the R.O.P.

PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I LANDS;APE ARCHITECTURE

72 VctOI& Strt South, Suite 201, Kitohene. ON N2G 49 19 56. 8S3i2 Locke Street South, Suite 200 Hmthori. ON U3P 4A2 YEAs•spçoup CC

This will result in a surplus of 88ha that could be used elsewhere within the Settlement Area.

Yours truly,

GSP Group

BiN Green, MCIP, RPP

End.

GSP Group 2

— aa

Ow

Ui

0

LLJza

I-z.zw

WLU t;>øw0c .D

rD

(I)

0U)

: (4Ii.

4%

I—’0

Hi

PART

LOT

107

GER

MA

NCO

MPA

NY

WA

dE

EA

CPI

NIJ

C1D

WN

SIW

6FflO

O)

TOW

NSH

IPO

PW

OO

LC

HR

ESIO

NA

LM

UN

ICIP

ALI

TYO

PW

R1E

RW

O

fl

-0

iIW

tioW

c,,m

‘c

Me

oflW

1

(ES

TA

BL

ISH

ED

AS

WIN

GS

HIG

HW

AY

BY

OR

DE

RIN

CO

UN

CIL

1610/7

2.

WE

DIS

TE

NE

DA

SIN

ST

.4

70

44

6)

AS

WID

EN

ED

By

NE

GIS

TE

RE

DP

lAN

No.

282

“0

2A

28

—‘0

O2

IL17

Ic;8

Orn,

0=fltii,

‘•‘

—

THE

KIN

G’S

HIG

HW

AY

No.

7

I1S

E11

111

AIM

WAS

(mIl

LE

D1584

1611251

INS

tW

6ORW

BIW

I

ThomasfieIdHomesL I m t e d

ianuary 8, 2016 via E-Mail

C-SP Group72 Victoria Street S, Suite 201Kitchener, ONN2G4Y9P

Attention: Bill Green, GSP

Bill,

Re Rutherford Property, 22 Ebycrest Road, Breslau

Bill as per your request please take this letter as our authorization to work on our behalf on the RutherfordProperty located on 22 Ebycrest Rd in Breslau. We currently have a firm offer on the property with theclosing date occurring on April 29w, 2016. If needed we can provide authorization from the sellersRosemary Rita Oliver and David Paul Rutherford.

Yours truly,

Thomasfield Homes

—7.7/

—

Torn Mclaughlin, Manager

295 Southgcite Drive, P.O. Box 1112, Guelph, Ontario NIH 6N3Phone: (519) 836-4332 Fax: (519) 836-21 19 info@thornasfield.com

APPENDIX D

I Brandon SloanManager, Long Range & Policy Planning

CSD - Planning Division

______

Kitchener City Hall, 6th Floor

WIlY’ 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118Kitchener ON N2G 4G7

Phone: 519-741-2200 x2648TTY: 1-866-969-9994

Fax: 519-741-2624bra noon ca ktchen er Ca

February 2, 2016

Attention: Jeremy Vink, MCIP, RPPSenior Planner

RE: Township of WoolwichRationalization of Settlement Boundaries as Part of the Scoped Official Plan ReviewKitchener Interest

We are in receipt of your circulation of several proposed Official Plan Amendments regarding the rationalizationof various settlement boundaries (via proposed additions and removal of lands) within the Township as part ofthe Official Plan Review. We understand as per the notice that there are a number of locations proposed to be‘rationalized’ and that a public meeting is scheduled. Kitchener will not be attending the public meeting; however,the City’s Planning Division would like to provide a few comments for consideration.

Previously we have indicated an interest in the growth and changes occurring immediately to the east ofKitchener within Breslau through various Secondary Plan/Official Plan and other development applicationprocesses.

Our interest and comments on this circulation are scoped to the proposed Breslau property owner requests forrationalization. Specifically, we are interested in the implications a decision regarding lands along Victoria StreetNorth. Any assistance with the following questions would be appreciated:

• Is there any supporting information (planning rationale, transportation, infrastructure or land usedocumentation) provided by Rutherford/Eby or Smartreit/Smart Centres that is available for review? If so,can we please receive a copy for our review?

• Have the proposed locations and ‘rationalization’ been considered in the context of the pendingestablishment of local level targets for the Designated Greenfield Area and its relation with theIntensification Level targets and population/employment allocations?

• Are there any sanitary (or other) servicing implications of the proposal that would have any adjustment orimpact on servicing, land or any arrangement thereof within Kitchener?

• If the proposed lands are ‘rationalized’ and added to the Urban Area, will this scoped Official Plan Reviewalso then be proposing a land use or will a subsequent process be required (either municipal or landowner initiated)?

• Will the ‘configuration to be determined’ be determined and available for public and agency review priorto a public / decision-making meeting?

The current configuration of the lands generally NW of Victoria St N and NE of Ebycrest Rd, along with theproposed Commercial land use designation in the proposed Breslau Secondary Plan is conducive to smaller, local-oriented development. Additional measures such as maximum floor size requires for retail outlets are helpful toensure that form of development.

The proposed reconfiguration will lead to a larger site with additional frontage. If the next step is to propose aCommercial designation on the added lands, this could also be of interest. We would assume that any of thepolicies or regulations regarding retail size would be carried forward to the balance of the lands. Should anythingon the subject lands be proposed more towards the scale of a Regional Commercial Centre, this may have severalimplications to the broader community including Kitchener. Should that be proposed, we would like to becirculated, review material and have input.

Perhaps one option to consider regarding the current rationalization is to keep the existing “hatched” lands (atVictoria/Fountain St extension), extend/connect the settlement boundary at the rear of those lands which wouldthen provide more frontage on Victoria St and yield parcels that are more locally-oriented with some travellingpublic influence (instead of frontage on new Highway 7/Ebycrest/Fountain/Victoria).

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contactthe undersigned at

Yours truly,

gçeBrandon Sloan, BES, MCIP, RPP

Manager, Long Range & Policy Planning

cc. Alain Pinard, Director of Planning — City of KitchenerJohn Lubczynski, Principal Planner — Region of WaterlooJohn Scarfone, Manager of Planning — Township of Woolwich