Midhurst: how flawed urban planning can destroy agricultural community

Letter from the SCFA to Mayor Linda Collins, Deputy Mayor Dan Mclean and Members of Springwater Council May 9 2012

The Midhurst urban expansion is a classic example of how flawed urban planning can destroy a long standing and viable agricultural community.

The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture is very concerned about the loss of 645 Hectares or 1594 acres of class one to four agricultural land (as estimated by Springwater Township staff) that would be lost if the current proposed development plan for Midhurst should be executed.

Some concerns raised by the public, SCFA Members and the Federation Board include:

• Loss of Farmland

• Economic Impacts of Loss of Farmland

• Impacts and Restrictions on remaining Farmers

• Flawed Phasing

• Water, Source Water Protection, Waste Water /Sewage

• Financial implications to the taxpayers of Springwater and the County of Simcoe

• Lack of meaningful public input

• Transportation Corridors, Traffic Congestion

Local Farmers have raised these concerns to Springwater Council but have seemingly been disregarded.

While the exact conflicts between the remaining farm operations and the urban community are not always predictable, the surety of friction is.  What may assist and perhaps benefit our community in these conflicts? The Federation has requested development of an agricultural committee at the County of Simcoe to provide farmer input to relevant policies and procedures including Land Use matters.

Currently other counties have implemented similar committees to ensure involvement with the farming community.  Terms of Reference are under discussion with the anticipation that beneficial dialogue on mutual issues will occur.

The Midhurst Secondary Plan does not comply with the Ontario Provincial Objectives of long term protection of Farmland.  The Midhurst Secondary Plan is not a sustainable or competent use of our land resources as it targets the best class 1, 2, 3 Farmland and will have negative impacts on the remaining farming community.  Realignment of the Settlement Boundaries to better protect farmland would show closer adherence to the Provincial Policy Statement and good land use practices.

The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture is not opposed to development, however not to the detriment of farmers and farmland. More sustainable options are available.

The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture (SCFA) believes that the highest and best use of arable land is for agriculture. Land capable of supporting agriculture activity ensures a safe, sustainable supply of food /fuel /fibre for Ontario, Canada and the World.

The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture role is an advocacy group operated by farmers that develops and consolidates positions on issues within the County which will improve the welfare of individual farmers and the agriculture industry.  We represent approximately 1,400 members in Simcoe County. Our board consists of many sectors of agronomy. We meet the first Thursday of the month at the White Pine Board room, Midhurst ON. Some of the items currently the SCFA also are involved with:

• involvement /input with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Canadian Federation of Agriculture regarding policies and how we relate to our government – Municipal, Provincial and Federal levels,

• investigation into problems with agricultural properties

• Education -Farm Safety Workshops “Keep Kids Safe “, “Ag info days”, “Farmer Comes to Town”, scholarships etc.

• Consumer awareness, “Food Freedom Day”

• Public relations, Events and Fellowship

We are writing to Springwater Council in response to concerns brought to our attention by our associates regarding the Midhurst Secondary Plan. After meeting with Springwater staff, presentation by former councilor with members of Midhurst citizens group and evaluating the documentation the SCFA understands and recognizes the concerns brought forward, The SCFA would like to share our concerns with Springwater Council.

Currently the Midhurst Community in the Township of Springwater has a population of approximately 3,500 people in 1,130 residential units.  It has a small commercial area, and an active, thriving farm settlement. The expansion of the Settlement boundaries, as approved in 1996 and again expanded in 1998, gathered a significant acreage of excellent farmland. The reasoning behind this is very vague flexibility in the future was the mentioned by a former councilor.  At the time a population increase of 3,000 was estimated.  This figure had grown to 8,000 by 2004 studies. In 2008 in keeping with the Provincial densification wishes planners tell us the Springwater Council approved and is now estimated to approach 30,000. Discussions with Planners state growth could exceed these #’s.  All use the same land area.  It is a mystery how such divergent population estimates can be proposed when the only variables are time and authors. This does little to engender confidence in the planning process, particularly when one observes from the farming community and sees the difficulties such changes can/will bring.

Curbing Sprawl- The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, contains policies to control urban sprawl, build better suburbs, make more efficient use of land and infrastructure, and protect farmland and green spaces. The Plan does this by focusing development in existing cities and towns, redeveloping and revitalizing downtowns, and supporting development around transit stations.” Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006- Ministry of infrastructure

When meeting with planner Mr. Brent Spagnol in February of 2012 inquiries were made for evaluation of farmland and quantities of agriculture land being loss due to development. Mr. Spagnol has provided an estimate – 645 Hectares of class one to four Agricultural land would be lost. Division of each class -1 -4 was not provided nor the overall acreage of the proposed development. The SCFA have been shown diagrams that show mostly class one, two and three land being developed. As these lands are removed from production capacity for generations to come, the ability of our members to supply domestically produced foods is greatly diminished and cases an undue reliance on imported foods.

In a recent United Nations Report they estimate 9 billion people to feed by 2040,3 billion will be living in hunger. We need to ensure Food Stability for Future Generations. Efforts need to be made to ensure supplies will meet demands by preserving farmland.

Ontario’s agrifood industry is highly adaptable and diverse. It represents the second largest industry in Ontario, with $32.7billion in processing alone and representing 700,000jobs in 2008.” OMAFRA website 2009

“Every Ontario former produces enough food to feed 120 people each year. The risks may be high, but Ontario farmers are proud of their essential role in feeding their neighbours and the economy.”  Bette Jean Crews, President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture

New crop prices are setting new benchmarks for agriculture producers. This is a standard rotation and does not include value added ventures such as, livestock, horticulture, fuel, fibre, agri tourism, specialty crops or premiums paid etc.:

Corn 4 Tonnes per acre – average yield @$235 Tonne =  $940. per acre

5 Tonnes =good crop @$235 Tonne = $1175. per acre

100 Acres of corn produces 400 to 500 Tonnes of corn

94,000 to $117,500 gross minus input costs.

* prices vary greatly throughout year old crop 2010 high low local estimate $180. to $320. per tonne

Soybeans 40 Bushel per acre – average yield @$1350 Bushel =$ 540. per acre

50 Bushel per acre =good crop 50@$13.Bushel =$ 675. per acre

100 Acres of soybean produces 40,000 to 50,000 bushel

54,000 to $67,500 gross minus input costs.

* prices vary greatly throughout year old crop 2010 high low local estimate 12 to 13 dollar a bushel

Soft Red 75 Bushel per acre – average yield 50@$5.Bushel =$ 412.50 per acre

Winter Wheat 100 Bushel per acre =good crop 50@$5.Bushel= $ 550.00 per acre

100 Acres of wheat produces 75,000 to 100,000 Bushel

41,250 to $55,000. gross minus input costs.

* prices vary greatly throughout year old crop 2010 high low estimate $5.50 to $ 6.50

One member put forward that he spent $700,000 —last year, locally for feed, fertilizer, seed, herbicides, machinery repairs, hardware, financing, trucking, and fuel. This is a very important sector and agriculture lands have been called the Employment engine of Ontario. The continue removal of Agriculture lands will have deep impacts in Springwater and the Province.

“The Midhurst urban expansion is a classic example of how flawed urban planning can destroy a viable agricultural community.” Property and Land Use Report-SCFA 2022

The order in which development is slated to occur does not seem to follow reasonable or good planning principles. Proper infilling within the community of Midhurst would seem to be a much better choice and would have less impact on the quality farmland creating, “A Complete Community.”  Instead the proposal before the township, the furthest development location from the proposed sewage treatment facility and on the far eastern boundary seems to be assigned to be first. This also is the location of the highest class agriculture in the area.

Infrastructure costs would decrease with more practical infilling within Midhurst. And unlike the residential and commercial costs to residents /taxpayers the financial support for infrastructure to farmers is negligible.

Simcoe County is one of the fastest growing regions in Canada.  It was left out of the Greenbelt and government officials at the Municipal and Provincial levels seem to be in great support of developers. Leapfrog growth in Simcoe County is putting agricultural land at great risk and being targeted openly by developers. Simcoe County faces huge growth pressures. The proposed dramatic increase of the area’s population is leading to quick decisions with little public input. Who at the Province and Municipal government is ensuring agricultural land will be protected? Under what policy? Where is the involvement of the public in such a substantial undertaking?

In October 2011 County Councillor Robert Keffer and dairy farmer from Bradford tried to pull the Midhurst Secondary Plan for discussion. As reported on aware – simcoe.ca, Keffer’s wish to discuss the matter at County Council was thwarted by CAO Mark Aitken, who told him that as the matter fell under delegated authority, there could be “no discussion” at county council. An examination of By -law 5478 reveals that Keffer was within his rights to ask for the matter to be discussed. The bylaw stipulates “THAT all delegated powers and actions provided for in this By-law are subject to the condition that County Council retains the option of exercising its authority to approve or comment on any application at its discretion.” The fact that debate was blocked off is regrettable, given the nature of the proposed development, which will bring irrevocable change to the community of Midhurst, pave over Class i and II agricultural lands in an exceptionally fertile area.

The Federation has requested development of an agricultural committee at the County of Simcoe to provide farmer input to relevant policies and procedures including Land Use matters.  Currently other counties have implemented similar committees to ensure involvement with the farming community.  Terms of Reference are under discussion with the anticipation that beneficial dialogue on mutual issues will occur.

Significant changes to the road network are proposed, including two 4 -lane avenues that will intersect with Highway 400. As currently proposed, these roads will be built on land outside the settlement boundary, further consuming good farm land.  Traffic from a +30,000 community will be intense.  Movement of farm machinery across or along a 4 lane road will be problematic.  Such movement is already a challenge as machines have grown to match farm acreage but there has been no similar improvement in road systems. While the exact conflicts between the remaining farm operations and the urban community are not always predictable, the surety of friction is.  Many a time the Federation hears of close calls experienced by farm families on busy hi -ways.  So much so that main routes are avoided during peak travel times.  Planting, Haying and Harvest time in particular are difficult to work around commuter and holiday (weekend) schedules -the risks are great especially with commuters’ not experienced with slow moving vehicle signs and who do not accommodate the width of farm machinery while passing.

The Midhurst Secondary Plan has changed in its methods of dealing with Water and Waste water/sewage.  Most farmers prior to deciding on where to locate would ensure a good water resource a priority.  The Location of a well within the development would seem wise.  However Robert Wright, dairy Farmer and longtime resident states, numerous test wells were drilled inside the Secondary Plans boundaries but the quality of water was not acceptable. The well of choice is located at the bottom of a hill on Russell Rd. outside the boundaries of the Plan. Nine hundred acres of active farmland slopes towards this well. What kind of restrictions will be imposed on agriculture if this well is allowed to be the source of drinking water for thirty thousand people? How will this affect the viability of existing farms and the aquifer that supplies their water?”

Why was this not considered prior to drilling the well? We await these answers from Springwater and the Ministry of the Environment. We hope a new water source would be considered to prevent source water protection creating adverse effects on farmers. In addition taking more farmland out of production and placing more restrictions upon them.

Midhurst has no sewage treatment facility presently as it is serviced by domestic septic systems. Presently it has inadequate waste water capacity. Plans have been considered including communal septic systems with waste water being brought to drinking water standards and placed into injection wells to replenish the aquifer. This was considered since the aquifer could not replenish itself with the pumping rates and the size of the development. Now plans include a Sewage treatment facility being built, 10 pumping stations and effluent placed into Willow Creek which is a low volume stream and a cold water fishery. The Community of Midhurst is greatly concerned. This stream in turn flows through the Minesing Swamp to Nottawasaga River and into Georgian Bay.  The impacts to the Creek are unknown.

The vast distance from the development is problematic. As a result this plan will impose major infrastructure expenses and ongoing long term cost. We have many communities surrounding that have access to water as well as sewage capacity with added benefits of other necessary infrastructure. This should be considered prior to approval of developments.

The Midhurst Secondary Plan does not comply with the Ontario Provincial Objectives of long term protection of Farmland.  The Midhurst Secondary Plan is not a sustainable or competent use of our land resources as it targets the best class 1, 2, 3 Farmland and will have negative impacts on the remaining farming community.  Realignment of the settlement boundaries to better protect farmland would show closer adherence to the Provincial Policy Statement and good land use practices.

Open public participation and a more reasonable time frame to plan huge projects such as these should be considered.  Mapping sent to households affected would be a beneficial practice. Pertinent info regarding plans be on display at the Township office would be advantageous to the taxpayer, especially those with no internet services or those not using computers.

The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture would like to thank staff for meeting with us to explain information known about the development. We hope council will revisit this plan. We ask to be kept abreast of upcoming meetings, OMB hearings, deadline dates.

The well head at the bottom of Russell Rd is a great concern and we would like to be copied the Environmental Assessment info for this well or other supply well being considered.

The Federation would like to be included on issues related to the development in Springwater in general and the Midhurst Secondary Plan in particular.

President of the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture,