Amendment 1: A vision unfulfilled

AWARE SIMCOE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GROWTH EVALUATION AND CRITIQUE OF JANUARY 19, 2012 AMENDMENT 1 TO THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE – MAY 23 2012

The Vision of AWARE Simcoe for the Simcoe area is to create a growth plan that will result in complete communities – strong, livable and healthy; a plan that supports the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of all of its residents;  a plan that ensures farming will be continue to be productive, diverse and sustainable, while at the same time protecting, conserving, enhancing and wisely using the valuable, natural resources of land, air and water for current and future generations.

Growth does not pay for itself. Development charges never cover the entire cost of infrastructure, and ongoing maintenance and renewal of an expanded system falls on all taxpayers, not just the residents of new development. 

Jobs must come first, and then people will arrive. Increasing the number of residents in Simcoe County will not reduce unemployment or decrease taxes. 

If the only jobs that are generated by population growth are linked to construction on fertile land, this is in fact a negative employment impact on the most vital and important economic activity in the county – the agricultural industry. 

Residential growth does fuel expansion of a significant sector dear to the hearts of many politicians: government. The number of municipal employees goes up, the number of municipal projects and services to support the growth goes up, and taxes increase for everyone. 

 The plan says it aims to accommodate “expected” or “forecast” population and employment growth. What is lacking is any examination of how much growth Simcoe County can accommodate before losing the attributes the plan says it wants to preserve (busy urban centres, charming and historic villages, beautiful natural areas and productive agricultural lands.)

The population forecasts that are mandated in Section 2.2.1 are not predicated on the carrying capacity of the land. The underlying assumption is that that past growth rates will continue and are desirable.  

The province says it plans to review the forecasts every five years. In its ‘Vision for Growth’ for Simcoe County (2009), it promised to undertake an infrastructure plan, including a waste and wastewater strategy, and an area transportation study (Section 5). 

But we say that first must come the foundational work of establishing how much land can we afford to take up for growth without destroying the viability of Simcoe County`s natural assets – its agricultural sector, its groundwater, its forests, wetlands, beaches and wilderness. 

To link growth targets to the carrying capacity of the area provides for balance and sustainability. Growth for the sake of growth will entail ever more expensive and environmentally questionable engineering projects, from big pipes to incinerators.

Section 6 of the updated Growth Plan is Amendment 1. This new section was added to the Growth Plan, effective January 19, 2012. It deals exclusively with the “Simcoe Sub-area.” Section 6 includes no special protection for agriculture even though the threat to the county’s important agricultural land base from greenfield encroachment was the primary reason for the province’s decision to legislate specific provisions for Simcoe County. 

We urge the province to take urgent action to remedy this significant oversight. Simcoe County needs to achieve more than food security for its own residents; it must be seen as a vital agricultural resource for the whole Greater Golden Horseshoe.

A good example of the kind of protection we would like to see implemented across the county is contained in Section 3 of Essa Township’s Official Plan. It contains extensive and strongly worded protection for agriculture. For instance:

“Non-agricultural activities, which may restrict the full use of farmland for food production, shall not be permitted where they would restrict existing or potential farming operations.”

While municipal Official Plans generally provide clear direction to council and citizens, exceptions have been made. This shows how important it is for the provincial government to clearly enact legislation that protects agricultural land and activities. 

While municipal Official Plans will now be required to “conform” to the Growth Plan as amended, some provisions in Amendment 1 remain unclear:

– the “phasing” policies that are required but have no stated criteria

– intensity and density targets for the outer ring municipalities that are not determined  

– monitoring or oversight guidelines or reporting mechanisms that have not been established to audit conformance to the Growth Plan.

Also removed is the earlier provision to establish Interim Settlement Area Boundaries, intended to effectively ensure contiguous and limited growth on designated lands using existing infrastructure capacity. 

This apparent lack of an efficient land use framework will result in each municipality expanding at their own pace, and without regard for County-wide efficiencies in land use, infrastructure expenditures or regard for the combined demands on the watershed.  

Aside from the ecological impacts, Amendment 1 will contribute to the rising cost of residency in our communities. Growth does not pay for itself. Taxpayers face increased municipal infrastructure costs associated with unfettered urban growth, as well as increased costs of providing soft and hard municipal services.  

A closer look at Section 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.2.3.

(1) Infinite flexibility 

Section 6.3.2.1  allows development in excess of the forecasts the ministry has adopted.  There are four provisos – that the development contributes to intensification, that the land was designated for urban use as of January 19 2012, that it can be serviced in accordance with provincial plans and policies and that where the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan applies, it must comply. The words  “can be serviced” are important here: they offer infinite flexibility and opportunity for interpretation.

This is the section that Parks has called the “Good to Go” policy. It removes strong policies to address the oversupply of urban land that is the rationale for Amendment 1. There was good reason for the interim settlement boundary policy: at a January, 2011 briefing in Barrie, Tija Dirks, then of the Ontario Growth Secretariat, said that if all the designated land was developed, the population of Simcoe County would be 1.1 million by 2031, several hundred thousand more than the 667,000 figure the province has been using as its forecast and that has been in effect a “cap” on population growth. 

Growth to 1.1 million is unlikely. But the lack of clarity on numbers creates confusion for every municipality, especially the seven that are, or include, Primary Settlement Areas. County councilors have been reminded by Planning Manager Rick Newlove that the numbers are up for review every five years, with the implication that it could be expected that the province will revise the forecast of 667,000 upwards. 

But what AWARE Simcoe has been told by Infrastructure Ministry officials is that the census figures indicate that their forecasts are on target, and that 667,000 by 2031 is the number the county should be working with. We also understand that the flexibility built in to Section 6.3.2.1 is to allow Simcoe County to address “legacy approvals,” e.g. de-designate approval of urban use for lands that clearly do no satisfy provincial policy and the vision of the Growth Plan. AWARE Simcoe has not heard any reference to getting rid of “legacy approvals” in staff reports to, or briefings of, county councillors.

(2)  The 20,000 extra people 

Sections 6.3.2.2 and 3 allow lands not intended for urban use to be redesignated for urban use for up to 20,000 people within a 5-year time-frame. There’s no justification offered for this loophole and no evidence that it is necessary.

One can only conclude that it was added for political reasons to appease developers and Simcoe County’s pro-sprawl municipal leadership. This is regrettable, coming at a time when a new wave of politicians are starting to question the assumptions that have prevailed to date in planning and land use – and could benefit from strong progressive provincial direction.  

It should be noted that in his presentation to the county’s corporate services committee, Parks stated that the effect of Sections 6.3.2.1 is such that most municipalities will be able to grow unfettered by population forecasts on land already designated for urban use within their boundaries, and will not need to access the allocation of 20,000 extra people.

(3)  Phasing

There are references through Section 6 to the need for phasing to ensure the orderly and timely progression of development on lands for urban use (section 6.2.9). This should mean that the development that proceeds first is the development that would link in to existing infrastructure, followed by development within built areas and development adjacent to built areas. This would direct development first to those municipalities that have excess infrastructure capacity. But there are no guidelines on to assist municipalities putting phasing policies in place – and these are key to ensure that no developer is able to jump the queue.

1. AWARE Simcoe has asked the Infrastructure Ministry to undertake a study to determine the level of sustainable population for Simcoe County.

2.  AWARE Simcoe is calling for legislation to protect agricultural land and activities as outlined in the Places To Grow vision.

3. AWARE Simcoe is calling for policies to close the loopholes in Sections 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.2.3 in Amendment 1 that fail to address the oversupply of designated urban land and allow unwarranted development.

4. AWARE Simcoe has asked the Ontario government to stand firm with its appeal of the approval of the Midhurst OPA 38 by the County of Simcoe and stop the development on these prime pieces of agricultural land.

5. AWARE Simcoe calls on County Council to avoid a costly Ontario Municipal Board hearing and rescind OPA 38 approval. 

6. AWARE Simcoe urges County Council to focus growth on the seven Primary Settlement Areas.

7. With regard to the 91 settlement areas, AWARE Simcoe urges County Council to develop policies to emphasize intensification within built boundaries and to halt expansion of settlement areas on prime agricultural land.

8. With regard to residential development across the county, AWARE Simcoe urges that the new Simcoe County Official Plan restrict residential growth in settlement areas unless real employment opportunities justify the need. 

 9. AWARE Simcoe calls on County Council to adopt a plan based on a long-term vision of what Simcoe County should look like in 50 years and to tailor its policy regarding development accordingly. The present policy of responding to development pressure is not responsible stewardship.