I just went to a workshop on wetlands hosted by Ducks Unlimited. A couple scary statistics: mapping in 2002 shows Ontario has lost 70% of its wetlands; and of those remaining some have suboptimal functionality because they are surrounded by development and/or infrastructure. 2nd scary stat: of the remaining only 46% protected.
Why a concern? Wetlands significantly contribute to our health and well being: flood control, purification of air & water, ground water recharge, habitat for many species.
Other learnings: The economic benefits of wetlands are not being leveraged: aesthetic impact can raise property values, built storm water infrastructure can be reduced. Wetlands impact tourism. In a couple other provinces and in some US states mitigation for sanctioned wetland damage is funding significant restoration of wetlands in agreed areas. Finally, the disincentive to not protect wetlands by transferring to CA’s etc was noted; specifically the loss of tax revenues.
Wetlands figure prominently in our Sustainability Plan. I confess that up until this work shop I did not fully appreciate how wetlands merit consideration other than from an environmental perspective—as reviewed above, there are socio cultural, financial and economic concerns & opportunities.
Hi Debbie,
I am also very happy to see wetlands receive such prominent attention in King’s Sustainability Plan.
And I think this may be put to good use, sooner than later in Schomberg: The Brownsville Junction OPA application to construct a professional building at the corner of Cooper and Doctor Kay Drives appears to me to be encroaching on the Dufferin Marsh, hence the “Environmental Constraint” zoning. (In addition, the land in question is right beside the storm management ponds for the plaza, further complicating things).
Schomberg no doubt needs more access to professional services. But as a community and consistent with the Sustainability Plan, we’ll have to watch and participate in this application to ensure the Marsh continues to be protected, and that this proposed development, if its deemed “safe” for the Marsh’s sustainability, also fits within the Plan’s other values, including local Design Guidelines* and respect for heritage, specifically.
* Regarding Design Guidlines: A bit of an aside here but equally topical: As they and each Community Plan is written, they only apply to each defined “village core”. In this case, the plaza lands are outside of this area. As the villages have grown and as lands are intensifying in use, not to mention our new focus on heritage, village gateways, tourism, etc. I believe these village core definitions deserve a serious re-think [read: expanded]. The Schomberg Plan is currently open for amendment: this would be an excellent time for the Planning Dept. and Council to consider expanding the core definition to include the lands all along Doctor Kay Drive and Highway 27 from Highway 9 to the Lloydtown-Aurora Road.
hi Greg, I can only agree with the points you have raised re: development in proximity to Dufferin Marsh.
And I understand your comment about definition of village cores. Even if one is to continue to keep the current definitions I think we need to realize that the definition does not imply that “anything goes” in the area outside. the feedback from the Mt. Albert group who visited Schomberg under the FICE program was interesting: so very enthusiastic about the core but very surprised at how charming it is as there was nothing outside of it to suggest this. thanks for your comments.