Town preparing response to provincial growth plans

But calls for county-wide rejection of amendment are seen as unpractical
By Chris Simon Innisfil Scope January 19 2011
An Orillia-area MPP is calling on Simcoe County municipalities to outright reject the provincial Liberal government’s growth plans for the region.
But such an approach is unlikely, since municipalities must provide a response to the proposed Amendment 1 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe by Jan. 31, says Innisfil mayor Barb Baguley.
“With the constrained response time, which the town intends to meet, we’re having trouble reaching out into the community,” she said. “We’ve done that as best we could, and now staff is putting together a consolidation of comments and perspectives. But the province did not go to the public to ask what they think. That is problematic. To get the county together and have a collective opinion (within) that short constrain, I don’t think it’s practical. I’m not sure what would be gained by a collective, loud ‘no’. What is to be gained is understanding of the county, and specifically Innisfil’s, circumstance. The reality of the community, of snow removal, density and things like that have to be seen to be understood.”
Baguley was responding to comments made by Simcoe North Progressive Conservative MPP Garfield Dunlop last week, which called on county municipalities to reject the plans, and make growth a ‘high priority’ issue during the provincial election later this year.
Dunlop also wants the feedback period extended to July 31. He says the province has rejected that idea, which would have given new councillors in the county’s 16 member municipalities time to truly understand and review the document.
“After hearing from municipal councillors … it is clear to me that the growth plan is terribly flawed and is of no benefit to the citizens of the county,” he said. “This socalled growth plan has been severely flawed from the beginning, because it allows the province to micro-manage all planning within the county, but exempts all other municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe from the amendments. Jobs in the development and construction industry will be negatively impacted because the plan caps and delays existing draft plan approved projects and it will pit community versus community for a share of limited permits.”
The amendment includes several items that affect the town, including the approval of the Innisfil Heights industrial employment area. However, it forecasts Innisfil’s population to grow to 56,000 residents by 2031, a decrease of several thousand people when compared to earlier projections. It also proposes 40 per cent intensification for new development, and fails to recognize Alcona as an urban growth node.
Council has also asked for an extension, and would greatly benefit from a 60-day reprieve, to allow for greater public and developer consultation, said Baguley.
“I’m not sure we need until July; even another 60 days would give us enough time to come to grips. There has to be a certain amount of economies of scale if we’re going to service (Innisfil Heights) and make it financially profitable to develop,” she said. “Our community must have local employment opportunities for Innisfil and … the region. One of the biggest problems Innisfil is having is the intensification at 40 per cent, and yet not being designated an urban node. An urban node brings with it the promise of growth. My priority is to deal with the economic zone and the reality that we need that to bring prosperity.”
A report on the growth plan will be formally presented to council on Jan. 19. For more information on the amendment, visit www.placestogrow.ca.