Woolwich — Ward 2
2 candidates responded
Sheryl Tilley See responses
- Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
- Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
- Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
- Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
- Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply
- Require area-specific planning studies before permitting additional density
- Defer to neighbourhood opposition and reduce or stop contested density
- Approve density where infrastructure capacity already exists
Describe one concrete zoning, planning, or development decision you would support (or oppose) that reflects how you would balance these priorities.candidate's own words
Oppose the addition/expansion of urban employment lands in rural townships.
Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words
Veto all settlement boundary expansions
Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on growth?candidate's own words
A continued, balanced reduction of immigration at the Federal level will reduce the demands on land, food, education and health. We're already seeing an increase in the availability of rental units (and resultant reduction in rent costs) due to the cap on foreign students. Let's free ourselves from the misconception that we have to endanger our resources, prime farmland, water, etc. so more people can live here. There are other places to live in Ontario.
What can the municipality/region do, if anything, about land which sits vacant for years because it is being used as an investment (land banking)?candidate's own words
Vacant land is beautiful land. Keep it that way!
Steven Haase See responses
- Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
- Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
- Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
- Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
- Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply
- Focus incremental density near transit, schools, and commercial areas
- Allow small-scale housing forms city-wide as-of-right (e.g. up to four units per lot)
- As-of-right rules only work when they match the community's plans. In downtown St. Jacobs
- zoning allows eight storeys while our guideline calls for four
- and that gap is why residents feel shut out. Density should also match servicing capacity
- since many homes outside our villages rely on wells and septic.
- Use public engagement to inform design, not to veto density
- Phase or adjust density in response to neighbourhood concerns about design or servicing capacity
- Require demonstrated city-wide benefits to justify local impacts
- Approve density where infrastructure capacity already exists
- Pair density approvals with targeted infrastructure upgrades
- Development charges help with up-front costs
- but they don't cover maintaining and replacing infrastructure over decades. New growth should be judged on its long-term cost to taxpayers
- not just whether the initial pipes and roads are paid for.
Describe one concrete zoning, planning, or development decision you would support (or oppose) that reflects how you would balance these priorities.candidate's own words
I'd support new housing in downtown St. Jacobs, including units over ground-floor shops, at the four-storey scale our community guideline calls for. The current proposal for a six-storey building goes beyond that. The zoning technically allows up to eight storeys, so the rules and the community's plan don't match. More people living downtown is good for the village. It supports local businesses, puts homes within walking distance of the school, shops and the Route 21 bus, and makes use of services that are already there. But the scale has to fit a heritage main street. I'd ask council to bring the zoning in line with the four-storey guideline through the Official Plan review. That way builders get clear, predictable rules, residents know what to expect, and new housing can go ahead without a fight over every application.
Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words
I'd put repairing what we already own ahead of building new. Woolwich maintains over $1 billion in roads, bridges, pipes and facilities, and much of it is aging. Before council approves new roads or servicing to open up more land, I'd want to see the full lifecycle cost of that growth and where the funding to maintain it will come from. In practice, that means a new project only goes ahead when it doesn't push needed repairs further down the list. Residents should be able to see what each one does to the long-term maintenance bill. That keeps today's growth decisions from becoming tomorrow's tax increases or crumbling roads.
Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words
Make the long-term infrastructure picture easy for residents to understand. Woolwich already publishes an asset management plan and an annual progress report, which is a good start. But the key numbers are buried in long technical reports: what we own, what condition it's in, and how big the funding gap is. I'd like a short, plain-language summary each year. When a growth decision comes to council, residents should be able to see how it changes those numbers.
What can the municipality/region do, if anything, about land which sits vacant for years because it is being used as an investment (land banking)?candidate's own words
The township has a few useful tools, and they work best when used early. The most practical step is tying approvals and servicing to real timelines. When the township approves a subdivision or site plan, or allocates water and sewer capacity, the approval should come with deadlines. If the builder doesn't move forward, the approval lapses and the servicing capacity goes to a project that's ready to build. Ontario gave municipalities stronger "use it or lose it" powers in 2024 to do this. Phasing large approvals so that later stages depend on progress in earlier ones works the same way.