Woolwich — Ward 3

1. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
2. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
3. Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
4. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
5. Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply

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 would oppose the current Thomasfield proposal on Victoria Street in Breslau if it proceeds primarily as a conversion of employment land to hundreds of additional homes without first demonstrating how the resulting infrastructure, servicing, employment capacity and complete-community needs will be addressed. I am not opposed to growth or density in Breslau, but I believe major land-use changes should be supported by clear analysis of roads, water/wastewater capacity, commercial services, recreation, employment opportunities and the long-term cost of the infrastructure required. Growth should build a complete community — not just add more houses.

Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words

I would oppose the current proposal to expand development into the Martin Grove area. Woolwich should be very cautious about converting agricultural land and extending development outward while we already face significant infrastructure renewal needs. Before considering expansion, I would want clear evidence that existing settlement areas cannot accommodate the required growth, along with a full accounting of servicing, transportation and long-term infrastructure costs. I also support maintaining a strong Countryside Line or equivalent settlement boundary to provide long-term certainty about where urban development ends and the countryside begins. Where growth can be accommodated within existing settlement areas and make better use of infrastructure we already have, that should be prioritized.

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on growth?candidate's own words

I support growth, but I believe the conversation needs to be about more than housing numbers. Growth should build complete communities — with infrastructure, employment, commercial services, recreation, transportation and other community needs developing alongside new homes. In Woolwich, that also means being realistic about long-term costs. New development can create immediate infrastructure requirements as well as future operating, maintenance and replacement obligations. Before approving major growth or boundary expansion, Council should understand those lifecycle costs, the available servicing capacity, and how required upgrades will be funded. Growth should pay for growth where reasonably possible, while recognizing that development charges do not necessarily cover every future municipal cost. I also believe residents should have a meaningful role in shaping how growth occurs. Local opposition should not automatically stop appropriate density, but concerns about traffic, servicing, design, recreation, commercial amenities and community character should be taken seriously and tested against evidence. My approach is simple: get the information, ask the hard questions, and then make the decision.

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

Woolwich currently tracks vacant and available development lands, particularly employment lands, but I would like to explore whether that tracking could be expanded to identify development-ready land that remains vacant for extended periods and whether existing planning and servicing tools can encourage approved projects to move forward.

1. Prioritize infill and intensification where infrastructure
2. Require detailed cost and risk analysis before approving
3. Use development phasing tied to infrastructure capacity
4. Limit outward growth unless full lifecycle infrastructure
5. Proceed with outward growth to address housing supply

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 support as-of-right permissions for missing middle housing in areas intended for housing, but never at the expensive of local forest or meadow infrastructure.

Please describe one concrete example of a growth or infrastructure decision you would support or oppose using this approach.candidate's own words

Support the construction of new developments that prioritize higher density housing models that support natural area enhancement and transit connection.

Would you like to provide any additional context for your views on growth?candidate's own words

I would be in favour of alternate models of community growth that favour eco-village and neighbourhood models that are integrated into the natural environment, provide opportunity for local habitat enhancement and local food production and have low carbon, healthy transportation modes integrated.

Other priority not listed abovecandidate's own words

Support innovative service demonstration models.

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 can be taxed with provision given for NOT taxing areas that are actually providing important ecological services. Vacant housing should be taxed as a dis-incentive.