OP comment: Bill French, AWARE Springwater

By Bill French AWARE Springwater August 1 2102

As a guiding principle the lower tiered governments are permitted to make their official plans more restrictive than the provincial policies. They have the authority to be quite restrictive in their OP placing much more control on how development should proceed. The biggest problem with the County OP is the lack of clarity and specific control and guidance which allows the sprawl and loss of valuable farmland which has occured in Simcoe County. Here are some observations and comments.

1. It is positive that the county recognizes that development should go to the primary settlement areas first. Adding clarification language would make this better understood and discourage land grabs like around Midhurst, Bradford, Bond Head or Hillsdale as Developers would know there will be little chance of development in the short to medium term.

2. More clarification of the extra 20,000 is needed in addition to the maximum 2,000 per application or 4,000 per municipality. It would make sense that the policy further stipulate that this additional growth be directed to the primary settlement areas that have infrastructure. There is no need to even consider the extra population in the other settlement areas.

3. More clarification of the projection population numbers for each municipality and how they will be policed especially in those municipalities that already have site plans and proposals on designated urban lands that exceed the projection numbers. The numbers allocated should be specified as maximum numbers rather than simple guidelines.

4. Policies to better marry the residential and employment lands. There should be a policy that actual jobs must be part of the mix before more residential development occurs. In other words developers should become part of the job creation and economic development of municipalities if they plan to build in the settlement areas..

5. Section 1.3 – The words “lifestyle quality” is used. There should be a definition of this statement. More time on the road commuting would seem to be contrary to this statement. Quality should be more than a larger house on a larger lot at a lower price than the major metropolitan centres. Cost effective municipal servicing is proposed as a goal. Clarification of what that means would be helpful. Unfortunately, even though stated later, protecting Agriculture does not appear as a goal of the plan.

6. Section 3.1 – Since the policy states protecting agriculture, retaining tourism and recreation and complete settlement areas, it would make sense that there be more focus in directing growth to the 7 Primary Settlement areas and restrict growth in the other settlement areas unless they already have existing infrastructure as funding will be a problem and challenge for the foreseeable future. Again most growth should only be permitted in the primary settlement areas as that would be the least expensive and most cost effective.

7. Section 3.11, 3.2.3, 3.2.4 all emphasize growth in primary settlement areas with services. The policies throughout should emphasize this as a goal and discourage development in the smaller communities unless there is a justified unique situation. Honda’s location in Alliston would be an example of a unique situation where there has been a local demand for housing because of the jobs which is what all residential growth should be based on.

8. Section 3.2.9 the conversion of employment lands to non-employment use should simply be not allowed if it has been established in a local municipal plan. Preference should be given for the reverse to allow for more local jobs.

9. Section 3.5.8 The required studies undertaken to establish the hierarchy of development should include environmental, economic and social impact studies before being approved by the county. The check list that is proposed in Sections 3.2, 4.1, 4.3 and 4.7 is inadequate and lacks strong control.

10. Section 3.5.9 and 3.5.10 seem to defeat good planning principles as it allows a mishmash of developments under the 20,000 rule. Adding a focus on Primary settlement areas as the preferred approach would help this confusing section. The Table 2 “Decision Making Criteria”. Could tighten and restrict the development.

11. Section 3.5.14 and 3.5.15 are positive but needs to be strengthened especially in cases like Midhurst where the development is not abutting the built boundary but in fact creating separate communities. Example illustrations would be helpful in these policy areas.

12. Section 3.5.17 could help clarify expansion of settlement boundaries if more reference was made to the existing built boundary existing at the time of the plan. If the policy tied back to the allocation, it could include a provision that would not permit expansion if there are already plans in place and lands designated for numbers that have been allocated. Springwater for example without the mega development in Midhurst has development approved or in the works that exceed the allotted 6,500 to 2031. With this in mind expansion of settlement areas should not be considered or approved.

13. Section 3.5.23 makes little sense as preventing sprawl should be the primary focus and the 50 residents per hectare should be a county wide directive. It would reduce costs of servicing, increase transportation potential etc. Section 3.5.24 The same intensification of 40% should be county wide.

14. Section 3.9 It would make sense that the employment lands be focused to existing complete communities such as Barrie, Orillia, Collingwood, Bradford and Midland/Penetang. The Rama and Lake Simcoe Regional Airport just destroys more farmland and will require extensive infrastructure and create more commuting.

15. Section 3.13 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Except for Barrie and Orillia it would appear that any other development should be avoided because of the size of the Lake and its slow discharge into Georgian Bay. Projections suggest a 20% increase in phosphorous over the next 20 years, while the act dictates a 40% reduction. Any development would require a 0 discharge and policies to improve existing facilities that use the lake as its water and discharge source.