County councillor prevented from discussing Midhurst Secondary Plan

By Kate Harries AWARE Simcoe October 28 2011

The Midhurst Secondary Plan, which provides for the addition to that community of 11,000 people initially, and 30,000 people in the long-term, in startling contravention of the population projections of the Ontario government’s Places to Grow plan, was approved by Simcoe County’s corporate services committee on October 12.

Some observers, this writer included, did not realize that the corporate services committee had delegated authority under the Ontario Planning Act through By-law 5478, passed in March, 2007, under the wardenship of former Springwater mayor Tony Guergis, and that the clock had started ticking on a 20-day deadline for any appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Midhurst Secondary Plan was approved by Springwater Council in 2008, when Guergis was mayor, but County Council – in the throes of trying to get its Official Plan approved by the Province, chose not to approve it at that time. 

Fast forward to October 25, when county council met and the corporate services approval was on the agenda.

Bradford West Gwillimbury Deputy Mayor Rob Keffer flagged the item for discussion. Keffer, a farmer, is known for his defence of Simcoe County’s agricultural character and his questioning of conventional wisdom that growth is the path to prosperity. In fact, many respected planners have demonstrated that development charges fall short of covering infrastructure costs associated with growth and the burden falls on existing taxpayers.

But Keffer’s attempt to discuss the plan  was shut down in short order by CAO Mark Aitken, who told him that as the matter fell under delegated authority, there could be “no discussion” at county council.

This came as a surprise to AWARE Simcoe observers in the gallery, who were expecting debate of a massive development that challenges provincial efforts to control greenfield development that has been swallowing up agricultural land  in Simcoe County.

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.”

Keffer needed the support of one other councillor as a seconder to bring the matter to the floor. And then there could have been a discussion.

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, and have a critical impact on Willow Creek and many uniquely sensitive ecological areas.