Editor: Township council at its June 12, meeting passed first and second reading of the Brookswood-Fernridge Draft Community Plan 2017, and sent it next to public hearing.

During the previous, 2014 Brookswood-Fernridge failed Community Plan process, a big outcry was made at the public hearing about density with small compact lot, parking problems etc. 鈥� like they were seeing in Willoughby 鈥� which resulted in the plan being defeated by council.

This time, because public engagement was increased, people appear to be more comforted and subdued as they have been guided through the process.

However, there are many issues with this draft plan that should be challenged.

Regarding land use, in the 鈥楽ingle Family 3鈥� areas, how many are aware that the density shown in this, the majority of single family lands to be developed, could be as dense as the 2014 plan was?

How many are aware that this new 2017 draft Community Plan promotes:

a) small 4,000 square foot lots and compact housing through the method of future Neighbourhood Plans?

b) 鈥渙n-site density transfers,鈥� which basically trades trees for small compact lot developments?

c) small lot cluster developments based on a misleading photo of a development surrounded by forest?

So we have gone from the existing developed part of Brookswood鈥檚 10,000 square foot lots to the 1987 plan鈥檚 7,000 square foot lots, to now promoting 4,000 square foot lots and unproven forms of exploratory housing like 鈥榗ottage鈥� and 鈥榗luster鈥� etc. in the name of saving trees.

People are being led to believe that cluster type housing is an innovative desirable trade-off. It鈥檚 small lot compact housing with parking problems, future urban depressed subdivisions, with scattered stands of old trees.

We, as permanent residents, don鈥檛 want devalued cluster developments built around us. Brookswood-Fernridge deserves better. You can always plant new trees but you can鈥檛 redesign a subdivision after it鈥檚 built.

It is a bad bargain and wrong to sacrifice the design of long-term subdivisions and neighbourhoods by trading trees for small 4,000 square foot lots, just because the trees are tall.

Neighbourhoods can exist for 200 years or more, whereas large trees are vegetation with uncertain life spans.

Pockets of Douglas fir and hemlock conifers in Brookswood are experiencing root rot disease and require removal. Tall conifers are also a safety risk of wind blow-down and wildfire spread.

Cedar Ridge in northeast Brookswood, which is Phase 1 of the existing 1987 Community Plan, with generous 7,000 square foot lots, is a perfect example of how to build a successful neighbourhood.

There is no cluster housing. They saved big, healthy trees where practical and planted new ones where they are likely to survive.

The densities and minimum lot sizes should be definitive in the Community Plan, not deferred to be altered in future Neighborhood Plans.

This 2017 Community Plan states in its introduction, 鈥淢ore detailed Neighborhood Plans, which apply to portions of a Community Plan area, must be consistent with the policies delineated in the Community Plan.鈥�

In my opinion, the 1987 plan is still the better overall plan and used in concert with the Subdivision and Servicing Bylaw 4861 is perfectly acceptable.

Roland Seguin,

Fernridge