Hillsdale citizens stood alone when their council abandoned them

Letter to the Springwater News – October 14 2010
‘It Has to Matter’
We, the former Directors of the now defunct Concerned Residents of Hillsdale (CROH) have decided to have our say with respect to the upcoming Township of Springwater Municipal Election. But first and foremost, it is important that we are clear. We joined together to write this article to report facts and create an awareness, as it applies to our experiences with the sitting Springwater Township Council. This article reflects the experiences and views of the undersigned and should not be attributed to the organization’s former members.

‘About Us’
It began in the spring of 2006 when Hillsdale residents became aware of the Heritage Village Subdivision Proposal. Inspired by the leadership of a local resident, two Community Meetings were held at the Hillsdale Community Centre in May 2006. Residents expressed deep concerns about the Subdivision Proposal and the overall development and growth of Hillsdale.  Residents also responded in droves by attending a Public Meeting pursuant to the Planning Act at the Elmvale Arena on May 8th, 2006, wherein they voiced concerns and opposition to the Proposal because of its ‘high density’ and the ‘lack of infrastructure’ to support the subdivision. Shortly thereafter, the residents formed an association to advance their position with the strength of numbers that organizations provide. The CROH appointed a Board of Directors and established a ‘Vision’. ‘Our Vision’ was “to ensure the responsible growth and development of Hillsdale in line with its face and spirit”.
It is important to note that the CROH did not subscribe to ‘NIMBYISM’ (Not in my Backyard Syndrome).  Our organization recognized and respected that due process regarding the Subdivision Proposal was engaged, that ship had sailed, and we at no time took the position that the development of the subdivision must be stopped.
‘What Occurred’
At the Public Meeting, the opposing statements in relation to the Subdivision Proposal had a common denominator – ‘high density’ coupled with a ‘lack of infrastructure’. To put this Proposal in the clearest of terms – the number of homes would double the size of Hillsdale. The ‘high density’ contained in the proposed subdivision was consistent with urban residential developments in cities like Barrie, Newmarket, and many other large centres in Ontario. The Proposal was inconsistent with, and did not mirror our existing community. For those familiar with Hillsdale, the lack of existing infrastructure to support the proposed growth is evident today.  Once again, the CROH was not opposed to the building of a subdivision, but we were opposed to a development of this magnitude. We cited our view that the Proposal was in contravention of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Intergovernmental Action Plan – ‘Places to Grow’. 
We liaised with the Township of Springwater, the County of Simcoe, the Developer, and participated in an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Hearing.
A series of meetings involving the CROH, the Township Planning Committee, and the former Director of Planning transpired. As most are aware, the Planning Committee is comprised of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, Councilors, and staff from the Planning Department. The Mayor is the Chairperson. The Planning Committee designated the Director of Planning as the liaison for our association. Further to a CROH deputation before the Planning Committee and under the provisions of the Planning Act, the Township made a commitment to our organization relating to transparency. As such, the CROH was to be fully apprised with respect to meetings and events, and receive relevant documentation and correspondence.
In a meeting with the CROH dated June 6th, 2006, the Director of Planning advised that the Township was also concerned about the density of the Proposal and encouraged the Developer to consider the  development consistent with the rest of Hillsdale.  In addition, the Township adopted a stance in a Planning Committee meeting dated May 23rd, 2006 that the Proposal should only be considered within the context of a Secondary Plan because of its scale, off-site environmental impacts, and anticipated significant community interest. At this time, Hillsdale did not have a Secondary Plan to guide growth and development. The Developer appealed the Township’s stance to the OMB, which resulted in an OMB Hearing in January 2008.
At this time, we believe it would be prudent to note that an element of Ontario’s Bill 51 was to restrict the powers of the OMB to approve developments over the objections of Municipal Councils. In addition, the Bill encouraged residents through their Municipal Councils to become involved and have a voice with respect to the responsible growth and development of their communities.  Early in the process and in line with Bill 51, the Township provided strategic advice to the CROH with respect to raising our mutual concerns at the OMB Hearing. The best strategy was for the CROH to join together with the Township and County at the OMB Hearing and present our like concerns.  In doing so, the CROH’s involvement strengthens the positions of the Township and County in terms of their approach being reasonable and having community support. The strategy was further enhanced by their statement that recent decisions revealed that the OMB prefers not to bypass local planning decisions.   
We felt a sense of relief that our elected politicians were listening and prepared to engage the Developer together with the CROH, and if need be, jointly present our collective positions at an OMB Hearing.
For a period of eighteen months prior to the OMB Hearing, the CROH was fully engaged with the Township and County, the Developer, and the OMB.  Moreover, with respect to the proposed subdivision’s density and the finalization of a Secondary Plan prior to subdivision approval, the CROH expressed their view that the provisions of the PPS and ‘Places to Grow’ were being circumvented. Policy statements such as;  the preservation of farmland recognizing that agricultural land cannot be eaten up by urban sprawl, curbing the development of lands in close proximity to provincially significant wetlands and streams, intensification using existing infrastructure, and maintaining sustainable communities, were presented and aggressively debated. With respect to intensification, ‘Places to Grow’ for Simcoe County, Barrie and Orillia identified areas south of Barrie for intensive residential development.   
The CROH also raised concerns with regard to the Proposal’s effect on adjacent lands – the provincially significant wetland known as The Copeland Craighurst Guthrie Complex and the Sturgeon River.
The Letdown and The Kicker 
Over time, our sense of relief dissipated. The Township failed the CROH in many areas. To name a few: they failed to notify and involve the CROH in an important meeting with the Developer; they inexplicably refused to engage the CROH in the formation of a Consolidated Issues List for review in an OMB Pre-Conference Hearing, yet they forwarded the Township Consolidated Issues List to the County and Developer; they failed to acknowledge the CROH in line with correspondence between the parties at a Special Meeting of Council. Their actions were very disconcerting from the obvious perspective that our organization were Township residents.  In addition, the CROH were granted Full Party standing at the upcoming OMB Hearing.  And most importantly, the Township was not living up to their own suggested strategy that the CROH join together with them to better present our like positions at the OMB Hearing.    And then the kicker. Prior to the beginning of the OMB proceedings in January 2008, the Township abandoned the position they adopted with the CROH. As a result, we stood alone at the OMB Hearing without the support of our elected officials.  The CROH presented and argued the association’s position relating to high density, the necessity to complete a Secondary Plan prior to considering subdivision approval, and that the Proposal contravenes the PPS and ‘Places to Grow’. We were not successful.      
‘The Aftermath’
Interestingly, the elected officials of the City of Barrie have publicly taken a position that the County of Simcoe Growth Plan is flawed and does not subscribe to ‘Places to Grow’. The Growth Plan endorses residential intensification in rural and small communities, inspires urban sprawl and the negative impacts associated with such sprawl. ‘Places to Grow’ guidelines refer to intensification in areas with existing infrastructure and notably, urban centres such as Barrie. Furthermore, the Growth Plan has been rejected by the Province of Ontario for many of the same reasons. Our sitting Township Council including our Mayor and Deputy Mayor, who occupy positions on County Council were all engaged in the creation of the Growth Plan, a Plan that does not reflect the principles of sustainability of ‘Places to Grow’ and currently appears to be in a state of flux.        
‘Make a Difference’
At the outset, we stated that the purpose for writing this article was to have our say in the upcoming Municipal Election. Respectfully, we implore the citizens of Springwater Township and specifically Hillsdale, to scrutinize the representations and platforms of all candidates. We also ask you to specifically examine whether the incumbent candidates have carried out their duties consistent with their representations, platforms, transparency, and a sense of accountability to the electorate. 
We are truly fortunate to live in a place as awesome as Springwater Township. We urge each of you to take time to vote for those who share your vision of Springwater’s future.
John Geist, Jim Gregory, Victor Mason, Alec Ovenden, Jay Pattison, William Preston, Diana Spear, Gwen Wasyluk