Springwater Residents Deserve Better Answers From Township!

Letter to the Springwater News May 24 2012
As a voting resident of Midhurst, I am deeply disturbed by the limited response Springwater Township has
provided the 1,500 citizens who signed the petition opposing the Midhurst Secondary Plan. On April 16, the Springwater Council was presented with questions raised by concerned residents of Midhurst. The
questions focused on key concerns including traffic congestion, environmental impacts and population
growth. Recently, the township published a response on their website. Unfortunately, instead of engaging
the citizens of Midhurst with any meaningful dialogue or substantive information, the Township chose to
skirt many of the key issues, and marginalized or dismissed other valid concerns altogether.
For example, Question 1 asked the Township to explain the annual urban growth rate under the
Secondary Plan. The Township responded by stating that they have not “designated an annual urban
growth rate”. How does a municipality develop a Secondary Plan and not have some basic statistical
projections regarding the number of new residents that can be reasonably accommodated into a
community on a yearly basis? Surely, a development project of this size and scope (that will see a village
of 3,200 turn into a town of over 30,000) would have projected annual growth rates to ensure that the
new community is sustainable and that these rates are comparable to other rural community growth rates
around the province.
When the Township was asked how it planned to protect the existing village from serious traffic
congestion, it responded by giving a description of the changes that would be made to roads in the
village (i.e. road widening, adding stoplights etc.) No information was included about how the current
residents would be protected. Obviously, the question cannot really be answered because the Township’s
own plan creates a situation in which the main roads into and through Midhurst will become the
transportation “arteries” for large subdivisions, thus causing serious traffic congestion in the heart of
the village. Ultimately, the massive increases in traffic will destroy the quiet, rural character of Midhurst.
Moreover, the current plan directly contradicts the Township’s own planning principles which aim
to “protect the character of the existing Midhurst community” as stated in the Midhurst Secondary Plan.
In conclusion, the answers provided by Springwater Township should concern us all. They demonstrate
a total disregard of the deep and serious reservations many residents hold for the Secondary Plan. What
is even more concerning is that the Township continues to maintain the position that Midhurst residents
were adequately engaged and informed about the Secondary Plan when it was approved in 2008. If this
was the case, why would hundreds of people in recent months attend meetings held by the Township
and community groups to learn more about the development plans for their community? Why would over
1,500 citizens sign a petition expressing opposition to the Secondary Plan? Springwater Township has a
responsibility to listen closely and respond appropriately to all the stakeholders that together comprise a
community, including the voting constituents of Midhurst. It is time for the Township to repeal the plan and
start anew. The current Springwater councilors cannot change the past but they can help to shape the
future. It is time to go back to the drawing board and create a new, better Secondary Plan that adequately
reflects the interests of all stakeholders in the future growth and development of our community. It is our
village and out future too!
Ki, Hand, Midhurst