County gets go-ahead for 12,000 of ‘bonus’ population
“Backroom deal” comment draws reproof
By Kate Harries AWARE News Network
The Ontario Municipal Board has approved 12,000 of the 20,000 “bonus” population that the Liberal government gave Simcoe County under Amendment 1 to the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan.
Members of AWARE Simcoe and other resident groups objected to the board approving part of the extra population before hearing their submissions, charging that key changes to the plan were being worked out in “backroom deals.”
The ruling came following a compromise worked out over the lunch-hour between the county and lawyers representing municipalities and developers during an OMB pre-hearing held April 15 in the Simcoe County Council chambers.
The remaining 8,000 will be held until a full OMB hearing into Phase 1A, which deals with the Simcoe County Official Plan’s growth management provisions for the 20,000. Other aspects of the Official Plan that are under appeal will go to later, Phase 1B and Phase 2 hearings.
Along with the lawyers representing 36 appellants (mostly developers) and 18 parties (mostly municipalities) were a handful of ‘participants,’ the term used for people who are allowed to present information to the board but lack the status of appellants and parties in terms of being allowed to cross-examine or call witnesses or be involved in the settlement process.
The participants complained that they were excluded from a process that included
-Three in-camera meetings of “experts” (planners retained by the developers or municipal planners) who “re-crafted” the Official Plan wording
-Negotiations between the lawyers that resulted in the appellants or parties agreeing to withdraw objections, allowing for board approval of all but four clauses to be dealt with at a full OMB hearing in June.
“The County of Simcoe is asking to go ahead to approve a motion revising 1A without giving us the opportunity to look at the changes,” said an angry Chantale Gagnon of the Everett Ratepayers Association. “If this goes ahead without receiving the statements from participants, our statements are no good, what are we here for?”
Sandy Agnew of AWARE Simcoe expressed his support for Gagnon’s position.
“We have the strongest interest in 1a, we have prepared material that we think will assist the board in making your decision,” he told the OMB panel. “If you go ahead and approve, we will be cut right out of it.”
Agnew said the process excludes the public from involvement in shaping the Official Plan. “To go out in the hall and have a meeting without including anyone else, this is what we’ve been complaining about all along – back-hall deals, backroom deals -“
OMB panel chair Sylvia Sutherland interrupted to reprove Agnew for “intemperate language.” Agnew apologized.
“We have heard from the participants at various times in the past,” said lawyer Corey Estrella, representing Carson Trail Estates. “They made the choice” not to have party status.”
Bernard Pope of Ontario Farmland Preservation said the reason the residents group did not become parties or appellant was solely because of the cost,
But Sutherland told Pope parties are under no obligation to hire a lawyer or a planner.
Not mentioned was the fact that residents and their associations and even their lawyers have been hit with legal action by developers for their participation as parties at the OMB – actions known as SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).
And recently, Mary Ann Sills, the second panellist in this case recently made headlines for ordering an Oshawa resident who had appealed that city’s Official Plan to the board to pay $10,000 in costs to RioCan, Canada’s largest real estate investment trust, and $700 to the City of Oshawa. The resident’s failure to have legal and planning representation appeared to have played a role in that situation.
Later on April 15, when Anne Ritchie-Nahuis of the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture asked for copies of the various motions the board had received that day, Sutherland questioned participants’ need for that information.
“You know your position,” she told Ritchie-Nahuis. “The exhibits are not critical to what your position is.”
Sutherland had earlier expressed her gratitude to Simcoe County lawyer Roger Beaman for getting cooperation to settle items so the board won’t have to hear them.
In an interview, Beaman said the deal to hold back an 8,000 allocation satisfied concerns expressed by Adjala-Tosorontio’s lawyer that if most of the 1A sections were approved, all of the 20,000 bonus population would be shared out between other municipalities before issues raised by the township are addressed in the June hearing.
In fact, Beaman said, it wouldn’t be possible for the county to approve any proposals that fast because of the time needed for staff reports and scheduling the council’s agenda. But “if it makes them comfortable, I thought, what the heck.”
Beaman said he knew of no applications that are ready to go although he had heard that there are three developers anxious to take advantage of the bonus provision – one in Collingwood, one in Innisfil and one in Midland. “They were very small, didn’t amount to more than 1,000 people altogether,” he said.
Adjala-Tosorontio’s most contentious objection is to the word “primary” – an important word in the province’s Growth Plan, which designates seven primary settlement areas within Simcoe County and emphasizes their importance in accommodating new population.
They are Barrie, Orillia (neither is covered by the county’s Official Plan), Bradford, Collingwood, Midland-Penetanguishene, Alliston and Alcona.
The role of these areas is recognized, although not mandated, within the county’s Official Plan and within the sections dealing with how the 20,000 bonus population will be shared out.
For instance, Section 3.5.11.7 requires that consideration be given to whether any application for use of the population allocation is on lands “within a primary settlement area.” Note – it’s not a requirement, just one of a number of issues to be considered when deciding whether to grant an application.
Adjala-Tos wants the word “primary” deleted and is drawing on the province’s new Provincial Policy Statement (which goes into effect April 30) to argue in favour of rural revitalization – the philosophical antithesis of the primary settlement area concept.
There’s a reason, after all, for populations having left rural areas: the work is no longer there. Subdivisions for people who commute are not revitalization. Revitalization will need a revolution in the way our food is produced.
The township has drafted two extra clauses it wants the board to approve, as factors to be consideration in allocating “bonus” population, one of which states that a factor to be considered would be “if the application focuses rural growth and promotes the vitality and regeneration of rural settlement areas.”
Another clause in the Official Plan, Section 3.5.10(i), states that an urban designation can be applied to lands presently marked not for urban use, if it “does not involve an expansion of an existing settlement area boundary.”
The “experts” deleted the word “existing.”
Adjala-Tos wants the whole clause deleted.
Adjala-Tos and Innisfil Mapleview Developments are seeking the deletion of Section 3.5.11.A, which requires that “the County, in collaboration with the local municipalities, will identify lands that qualify as lands not for urban uses for each local municipality.”
The two panellists on this case are both former mayors. Sutherland is the former mayor of Peterborough, Sills was mayor of Belleville.
Simcoe County’s motion has extensive information in affidavits and attachments on how the process leading to settlement had worked Simcoe Motion re Phase 1a – 20000 Population
Leave a Reply