County can’t get any respect from province

By Douglas Glynn Midland Free Press February 2 2011
“I don’t get no respect – Rodney Dangerfield
Rodney Dangerfield’s monologues got plenty of laughs.
But Warden Cal Patterson says the provincial government’s lack of “respect” for the people of Simcoe County is no laughing matter.
The province has kept a stranglehold on growth in the 16 county municipalities for almost two years, Patterson says.
And it could be another two years before there is any significant growth because the county’s Official Plan – submitted to the province in December, 2008 – has never received approval. It’s been in limbo.
“Everything is on hold!” Patterson says.
What has kept things on hold was the province’s 2009 decision to shelve the county official plan and release a discussion paper, titled: Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth.
The Vision paper proposed population and employment numbers that differed from those in the county official plan and designated five areas in the county as urban growth nodes.
While the province elicited feedback about the Vision paper, the county launched an Ontario Municipal Board appeal of the province’s handling of its official plan. The OMB has yet to set a date for a hearing.
Then, on Oct. 28 – right after the municipal elections – the provincial government released Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It set Monday, Jan. 31, as the deadline for submitting comments. Simcoe North MPP Garfield Dunlop called on the government to provide a six-month window for feedback, noting that 70 of the municipal councillors elected in county municipalities were novices, unfamiliar with the Growth Plan and the amendment.
The government balked, prompting Dunlop to accuse the Liberals of wanting to micro-manage development in the county.
The provincial government has maintained the Growth Plan is intended, among other things, to prevent urban sprawl, identify employment areas and green spaces.
Infrastructure Minister Bob Chiarelli recently told the Legislature his ministry received more than 100 submissions to the Vision Paper over 18 months.
“We are now having another three months of consultation, which will give new councillors time to review the draft amendment. We intend to move forward with our consultation process before we consider the final draft,” he added.
Chiarelli’s words don’t evoke much confidence on Patterson’s part, though, given the government’s track record.
Not only has the county been spinning its wheels for months, but so have the 16 municipalities whose official plans can’t be finalized because they must comply with the county official plan.
The delays, says Patterson, are costing taxpayers money.
Some municipalities have committed money to infrastructure with a view to getting it back through the issuance of building permits and development charges. If there are no building permits or development charges, he points out, they still have to pay that debenture debt.
“Planners and building inspectors in some communities are being laid off because nothing is happening.”
And, he adds, the spin-off effects are spreading to the education sector. “Students moving up through various grades are not being replaced, because families with young children are not moving into the area. And that has prompted discussions about closing schools.”
Dunlop describes the province’s actions as autocratic and intends to make it an election issue in October.
The veteran MPP says none of the other municipalities covered by the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is facing the intransigence encountered by Simcoe County.
Patterson says the county offered to step back from its OMB appeal and work with the province if it would allow the county to use its official plan to get things moving in the county.
“The market is here. People want to live in Simcoe County.
“But,” says Patterson, “the province’s response was that they are not prepared to accept that.”.
The county has also been pressing for a provincial facilitator.Patterson recalls that he had an opportunity to speak with Premier Dalton McGuinty last summer he raised the issue.
“The Premier’s response was, ‘I thought we already had one’.
“I said, well, she is not there now!
The next day the facilitator was back.
“But, by the end of the week she was gone again. She hasn’t appeared on the scene again”.
Patterson says he has invited three area MPPs to come to County Council and talk to us.
“We have asked to meet with Minister Chiarelli at the Good Roads Conference later this month,” he added. He is awaiting a reply.
One thing troubling Patterson, the Mayor of Wasaga Beach, and his municipal counterparts, is that the Growth Plan amendment proposes creating interim settlement area boundaries (ISABs).
If that happens, it could freeze for 20 years those development lands that fall outside those boundaries. The prospect of that happening has lawyers for some developers already lining up to challenge the prospect their clients could be left with a property that can’t be developed for years.
As the county’s response to the Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 says:
“The County is of the opinion that the establishment of ISABs will bring about legal challenges against the County and local municipalities that we are not prepared to defend. The County is very concerned about the prohibitive costs that will be involved in such an exercise.
“If ISABs are going to be required, then we ask that the requirement for including them in a county official plan be dropped and only reflect them in the local official plans.”
The county submission goes on to say the area-specific growth plan amendment is not necessary for growth management purposes in Simcoe County.
“We believe that the policy framework proposed in our adopted County of Simcoe official plan dated November 25, 2008 is appropriate, and can be further detailed in each of the 16 municipal local municipal official plans to ensure wise land use planning decisions are made and making sure they are in conformity with Growth Plan.”
Bryan Mackell, the county’s director of planning, development and tourism, expects the amendment could be passed this spring.
Meantime, the county is awaiting word on its OMB appeal.
“Everything in the county official plan will be an issue in front of the OMB,” MacKell says.
“If this process plays out as it would in a normal fashion, the entire matter may not be resolved for a year or beyond.
The municipalities, he says, will easily need six months to a year to finalize their official plans, which many “wisely put on the back burner.”
At the end of the day, Mackell suggests, the OMB process could resolve the entire matter.