The Bigger Question

The facts are that the County considers our area to be a "focus of growth" and "akin to a settlement area", the Municipality has zoned the area as "development" and the NEC designates the area as Escarpment Recreation, the least restrictive designation and in fact the area of the escarpment where growth should occur. The position of the BVRA is and has always been sustainable development, which protects the quality and quantity of groundwater in our neighbourhood.  If, as has been suggested by the Municipal planner, there will be a concurrent secondary plan for the area along with implementation of municipal servicing, then the concerns raised by the BVRA will have been addressed. Planned growth and protection of the water supply are fundamental to our position on the Beaver Valley Village proposal. The BVRA has officially supported the Grey Highlands Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Study. 


No one, not the public, nor the BVRA nor the proponent anticipated this Grey Highlands initiative, announced last spring. It changed the game for us and for Mr. Kiener. If servicing goes ahead, the vision for the area changes significantly. Mr. Kiener or any another developer could then make a new proposal for the balance of the Beaver Valley Village site as well as the remaining undeveloped portions of this Escarpment Recreation Area. The future of our neighbourhood is growth. The BVRA, its members and all residents have an opportunity as well as a responsibility to participate in this process. This is a different and potentially much larger issue than Mr. Kiener's Beaver Valley Village proposal and one that, as an association, we need to talk about at the 2012 AGM on Saturday, January 21 at 3 pm in the Kimberley Hall.