Should buildings along the Highway 26 corridor in Thornbury be closer to the street?

That's the question town officials are considering in a proposed amendment to the zoning bylaw.

Town planners are proposing to change the zoning bylaw applying to the Commercial C2 zone, on Arthur St., King St., and Bridge St. -- the Highway 26 corrdor in Thornbury. The bylaw currently requires a minimum front yard setback of 15 metres.

The amendment would change that to a minimum setback of one meter and a maximum of six meters. It would also allow institutional uses within the C2 zone.

Although the issue is being debated by urban planners in municipalities across North America, the timing of the town's bylaw has to do with the proposed town hall. Some of the concept plans put forward for that project show a building sited near the intersection of Bridge and Mill Streets, close to the street.

That issue has been the topic of much of the discussion about the town hall, with some people favouring it as creating a more accessible building and allowing room for public park space on the grounds overlooking the Beaver River. Others prefer to have the building farther back with some landscaping between it and the street.

Senior Policy Planner Cindy Welsh told council Monday that urban planners are moving away from the typical "highway commercial" style of development that puts parking lots in front of buildings, with the buildings themselves well back from the street. Putting buildings closer to the street makes for a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere and has a "traffic-calming effect", Welsh explained.

"Part of the intent of this is to improve the streetscape in the Highway 26 corridor," Welsh said.

She added that the guest speaker at the recent Georgian Triangle Development Institute dinner highlighted the issue and used photos of actual urban commercial strips to show how changing the streetscape can change the flavour of the commercial area. Welsh added that the approach includes installing bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks.

But several members of council expressed concerns. Councillor Bob Gamble cited several problems, especially when it comes to snow removal. Gamble pointed out that, during the winter, snow from the roads is pushed onto adjacent sidewalks.

"I have a concern that, for example on Arthur St., there would be no place to store snow. If the plough pushes it onto the sidewalk, and the buildings are a meter from the road allowance, where do you put the snow from the sidewalks?" Gamble asked. He was concerned about the cost to taxpayers if snow has to be trucked away more often.

Deputy Mayor Duncan McKinlay responded later that the snowploughing issue has to be addressed, but asked his fellow councillors to keep an open mind.

"I think we need to keep our eyes on the big picture," McKinlay said.

He added that the real question is how councillors and staff view the future of Highway 26. If it's to continue as a major regional and provincial thoroughfare, he said, it would need to be widened to four lanes. The new setbacks wouldn't work if that's the case, McKinlay said. However, if Highway 26 is to be more of a local road, then traffic needs to be slowed.

"It's an effort to create a feeling that you're in a town, so you slow down," McKinlay said. "This is a huge decision because if we do this it establishes that Highway 26 is never going to be four lanes. Maybe that's a good thing, because it would mean regional and provincial traffic would have to go to another route."

Councillor Cam Kennedy noted that several existing commercial buildings are already close to the road, notably Tigs and the cidery in the former apple storage building. Since the bylaw would apply only to future commercial development, "We can't move those or change them, so I don't see how we can make it (the setback limits) any farther,"Kennedy said.

But Gamble pointed out that several existing commercial buildings are farther back.

"Would we let the pharmacy, for example, build out to within one metre of the road allowance?" Gamble asked.

Councillor Michael Martin was concerned about vehicle access. If buildings are closer to the street, he pointed out, drivers can't see pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles approaching until they get past the front of the buildings. That could pose a hazard, he said. But McKinlay said it's unlikely there would be direct vehicle access between buildings. New planning policies could site parking access from side streets to reach parking lots behind the buildings.

Town Chief Administrator Officer Paul Graham told council he doesn't foresee "a wall of storefronts", because the setback allowance would permit buildings to be set at different distances back from the street. One business might want to be as close as possible, he said, but others might want room for a storefront patio or outside display area.

"The goal would be to develop an interesting streetscape and get the parking behind the buildings," he said.

Paul Mitchell, a member of the public, pointed out that he's heard some criticism of the Mill Pond condominium townhouses currently under construction on the former Co-op store site.

Mayor Ellen Anderson agreed that that's a worthwhile comparison, but said she's heard opinions both for and against the setback for that development. (The Mill Pond setbacks were set at three meters by the Ontario Municipal Board.)

No date was announced for the bylaw to come to council.