[GREN-Exec] first draft GREN submission for land use planning Jan2014

[Susan Koswan]

Thanks for your comments Greg. I have, once again, played with it some more
– trying to reduce the word count without losing the intent also – to make
sure they read it! 8-)

 

Have another read. Hoping this is it. 

 

Susan K 

 

From: Gregory C. Michalenko [mailto:gcmichalenko at uwaterloo.ca] 
Sent: January-08-14 10:37 AM
To: Susan Bryant; Susan Koswan; 'GREN Executive'; 'Bob Burtt'
Subject: RE: [GREN-Exec] first draft GREN submission for land use planning
Jan2014

 

I've probably done too much editing of Susan K's draft, but have tried
toehold to the spirit and content of it.  Coincident to Susan B's urging, I
had worked in a mention of hydrology.  I'm not sure what item #5 means -
perhaps it could be revised.  I also worked in a plea for intervenor funding
and  gave simply "toxic waste" as an example.  John can revise that to
specify the process he was involved in. Susan B's 3-point summary of the
heart of the issue is very nicely stated and should be highlighted, perhaps
by being noted as the most critical concern.  Please consider my version as
just tentative suggestions  and pick and choose , accept and reject or
ignore any parts of it as you see fit. 

- Greg

  _____  

From: Executive [executive-bounces at gren.ca] on behalf of Susan Bryant
[shbryant at uwaterloo.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:37 PM
To: Susan Koswan; 'GREN Executive'; 'Bob Burtt'
Subject: Re: [GREN-Exec] first draft GREN submission for land use planning
Jan2014

Happy new year to you too, Susan K.

 

So many thanks for putting this together. It’s wonderful, and I think
expresses the GREN perspective very well. My only suggestion would be that
it could perhaps highlight again and restate, at the end, our current
concern.

 

That OMB challenges to a ROP should not be allowed when that ROP 1) accords
with provincial requirements, 2) has been worked out after years of open and
inclusive local public consultation, 3) has been amended and approved by the
province. 

 

And perhaps we should note that in an urban area like Waterloo Region which
depends on groundwater for most of its water supply---and plans to depend on
that local resource for the foreseeable future---it’s especially important
that land-use issues not be vulnerable to developers’ pressures at the OMB.

 

I don’t have the right wording here, but someone else will if they agree
that we should highlight this point. 

 

That’s my 2 cents-worth. 

 

Cheers,

 

Susan B

 

From: Susan Koswan <mailto:susankoswan at execulink.com>  

Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 3:44 PM

To: 'GREN Executive' <mailto:executive at gren.ca>  ; 'Bob Burtt'
<mailto:bobburtt at gmail.com>  

Subject: [GREN-Exec] first draft GREN submission for land use planning
Jan2014

 

Happy New Year all!

 

So here’s my first kick at the can. This submission is due Friday, so
comments and suggestions welcomed pronto! Then I shall put it on GREN
letterhead and Bob’s your uncle! Ok, that’s enough clichés. 8-)

 

Susan K 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Executive mailing list
Executive at gren.ca
http://mail.gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/executive_gren.ca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20140108/30c552c0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GREN submission Land use Planning review Jan 2013 v3.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 39936 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/executive_gren.ca/attachments/20140108/30c552c0/attachment.doc>