OP Comment: David Strachan, Midhurst
Comments regarding Simcoe Draft Proposed Modified Official Plan
From Midhurst resident David Strachan to Simcoe County Clerk Brenda Clark August 10 2012
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Simcoe County’s revised Official Plan.
The County is to be congratulated for its extensive efforts to bring its Official Plan into
compliance with the Province of Ontario’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006,
as amended.
Unfortunately the revised Official Plan seems to ignore certain actions taken by Corporate
Services of Simcoe County within the last 12 months, which run contrary to the intent of both the
Simcoe revised Official Plan and the afore mentioned Growth Plan. One of these actions was the
approval of the Midhurst Secondary Plan (Springwater OPA-38) by Corporate Services on
October 12, 2011. It is unconscionable that the County of Simcoe would release a draft Official
Plan, which purports to comply with provincial regulations, a mere nine months after approving a
plan which disregards so many of them. For example, OPA-38 unnecessarily authorizes the
conversion of 540 hectares of Class 1 and 2 farmland into lands for urban use. Furthermore,
section 3.4.6 of the draft Simcoe Official Plan, gives the impression that the County is now
prepared to evade responsibility for this careless decision, by passing the buck to the Province.
The Midhurst Secondary Plan (OPA-38), in case you are unaware of the circumstances, was
conceived and developed in violation of requirements contained in the Province’s Growth Plan,
2006 (and summarized herein). It is likely for this reason, that Simcoe County chose not to
approve of this plan for three years, after its adoption by Springwater Township in November
2008.
Errors remaining in the draft Simcoe Official Plan
Although there seems now to be a high degree of compliance between the new draft Simcoe
Official Plan and the Province’s Growth Plan, as amended; and the population expectations in
Table 1 of the Simcoe plan have been adjusted to conform with those in Schedule 7 of the Growth
Plan, there remain some glaring and misleading errors which seem to have been overlooked:
In Schedule 5.1, Land Use Designations, the grey areas of the map depicted, as Settlements are
misleading. The grey area shown around Midhurst, for example, is many times larger than the
built boundary, even though there are currently only a few dwellings outside the built boundary of
Midhurst. If the grey area, is intended to depict Settlements following implementation of the
Midhurst Secondary Plan, then the population numbers given in Table 1 are invalid.
Also, the Settlement Area Boundary around Midhurst, was never intended to be more than a study
area. As stated in the Springwater Growth Management Strategy of December 2004 (page v),
it was recommended that “an urban expansion area analysis be conducted to determine the most
suitable location to accommodate growth within the large Midhurst Settlement Area”.
To my knowledge, no such analysis was ever conducted, contrary to clause 1.1.3.9 of the
Provincial Policy Statement.
Questions
There are many questions that deserve answers, but to my mind the most pressing ones are as
follows:
1. In view of the incompatibility between the 2031 population numbers for Springwater
given in Table 1 of the draft Simcoe Official Plan and the grossly elevated population
numbers which would result from implementation of the Midhurst Secondary Plan, will
the County of Simcoe now rescind its approval of the Midhurst Secondary Plan?
2. If not, then what justification does the County have for proposing, in its new Official
Plan, 2031 population numbers for Springwater, which are much lower than those
truthfully anticipated by the County?
3. Should the County decide against rescinding its approval of the Midhurst Secondary
Plan, then will the County explain why its Corporate Services department approved this
plan in October 2011, even though the plan blatantly disregarded (from June 2006 to
November 2008) the principals contained in the Ontario Growth Plan – the same
principals now being conceded by Simcoe County in its revised Official Plan?
These questions involve ethics, honesty and principles, so the political and legal status of this
case should not be considered relevant in the County’s response to these questions.
A more detailed appraisal of the draft Simcoe Official Plan is provided below, together with a
summary of Midhurst Secondary Plan infractions.
Appendix A: Midhurst Secondary Plan
Appendix B: Midhurst Secondary Plan violations
Appendix C: Draft Simcoe Official Plan
Appendix A
Midhurst Secondary Plan – Summary of Non-Compliance with Places to Grow*
1. Avoid expansion into Prime Agricultural Areas Non-compliant
2. Settlement Area definition Non-compliant
3. Reduce Urban Sprawl Non-compliant
4. Need for more residential planning approvals in Simcoe County No
5. Direct a significant portion of new growth to built-up areas Non-compliant
6. Focusing intensification in intensification areas Non-compliant
7. Building compact transit-supportive communities Non-compliant
8. Reduce dependence on the automobile Non-compliant
9. Providing convenient access to intra- and inter-city transit Non-compliant
10. Ensure the availability of sufficient land for employment Non-compliant
11. Planning and investing for a balance of jobs and housing Non-compliant
12. Encourage cities and towns to develop as complete communities Non-compliant
13. Directing development to settlement areas (incorrect definition) Non-compliant
14. Directing growth to areas that offer municipal wastewater systems Non-compliant
15. Prohibiting the establishment of new settlement areas Non-compliant
16. Municipalities are encouraged to ensure the informed involvement
of local citizens Non-compliant
* At the time when when OPA-38 was adopted by Springwater Council (November 3,
2008) and three years later when it was approved by the Corporate Services of Simcoe
County (October 12, 2011).
Appendix B
Midhurst Secondary Plan Violations – (expanded version)
Provincial Policy Statement (1996), clause 1.1.1.c. states –
Expansions into prime agricultural areas are permitted only where:
1. there are no reasonable alternatives which avoid prime agricultural areas; and
2. there are no reasonable alternatives with lower priority agricultural lands in the
prime agricultural area;
Provincial Policy Statement (March 2005), clause 1.1.3.9 states –
“A planning authority may identify a settlement area or allow the expansion of a
settlement area boundary only at the time of a comprehensive review and only where it
has been demonstrated that:
c) in prime agricultural areas: there are no reasonable alternatives which avoid prime
agricultural areas
THE “SETTLEMENT AREA” BOUNDARY WAS UNOFFICIALLY CREATED BY
CONVERTING A STUDY AREA INTO A SETTLEMENT AREA. THERE ARE PLENTY
OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA CONSUMED BY OPA-38
d) impacts from new or expanding settlement areas on agricultural operations which are
adjacent or close to the settlement area are mitigated to the extent feasible.
NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE IN OPA-38, TO MITIGATE THE AFFECTS ON
AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS
Places to Grow (June 2006). Settlement Areas are de?ned in Section 6, as
areas where:
a) development is concentrated and which have a mix of land uses; and
b) lands have been designated in an of?cial plan for development over the long term planning
horizon provided for in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Where there are no lands
that have been designated over the long-term, the settlement area may be no larger than the
area where development is concentrated.
THE “SETTLEMENT AREA” IDENTIFIED IN OPA-38 DOES NOT MEET THIS
CRITERIA.laces to Grow (June 2006) 1.1 (page 7, para 10, 11 and 15) states –
“Despite it’s many assets, Ontario and the GGH face a number of challenges in sustaining
and growing its economy;
· Increasing numbers of automobiles are traveling over longer distances
resulting in clogged transportation corridors. Traffic congestion and delays in
the movement of goods costs Ontario upwards of $5 billion in lost GDP each
year.
OPA-38 RELIES ON THE AUTOMOBILE FOR EMPLOYMENT .THERE ARE NO JOBS
TO SUPPORT AN ADDITIONAL 28,000 PEOPLE IN MIDHURST. EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES WILL BE DEPENDENT UPON LONG DISTANCE COMMUTING
· Urban sprawl continues to the degradation of our natural environment, air
quality and water resources as well as the consumption of agricultural lands
and other natural resources so critical to the future economy.”
OPA-38 RELIES ON THE MINESING SWAMP TO DISCHARGE THE WASTEWATER.
ALL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
Places to Grow 2.1 (page 13, para 3 and 4) states –
“There is a large supply of land already designated for future urban development in the
GGH. In most communities there is enough land to accommodate projected growth based
on the growth forecasts and intensification target and density targets of this Plan. It is
important to optimize the use of the existing land supply to avoid over-designating new
land for future urban development.
Strong, healthy and prosperous rural communities are vital to the economic success of the
GGH and contribute to our quality of life.
MIDHURST IS A RURAL COMMUNITY OF SOME 3,500 PEOPLE. THERE IS NO
NEED TO DESIGNATE MIDHURST FARMING LAND AS LANDS FOR URBAN USE.
Places to Grow 2.2.2.1 (page 14) states –
“Population and employment growth will be accommodated by –
a) directing a significant portion of new growth to the built-up areas in the community
through intensification
NONE OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE IN A BUILT-UP AREA
b) focusing intensification in intensification areas”
THERE IS NO INTENSIFICATION AREA IN MIDHURST
c) building compact transit-supportive communities in designated greenfield areas
NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN OPA-38
d) reduce dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed-use,
transitsupportive pedestrian friendly urban environments
OPA-38 WILL RELY ON THE AUTOMOBILE FOR LONG DISTANCE COMMUTING
e) providing convenient access to intra- and inter-city transit
NO INTRA- OR INTER-CITY TRANSIT IS PROPOSED IN OPA-38
f) ensuring the availability of sufficient land for employment to accommodate forecasted
growth to support the GGH economic competitiveness
OPA-38 STIPULATES 10,000 NEW DWELLINGS. BASED ON THE SCHEDULE 7
RATIO OF 23% EMPLOYMENT LANDS, MIDHURST WILL REQUIRE AN
EMPLOYMENT NUMBER OF 12,000. THERE IS NO PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT
LANDS TO SUPPORT 12,000 PEOPLE.
g) planning and investing for a balance of jobs and housing in communities across the
GGH to reduce the need for long distance commuting and to increase the modal share
for transit, walking and cycling.
LONG DISTANCE COMMUTING WILL BE THE NORM WITH OPA-38) Encouraging cities and
towns to develop as complete communities with a diverse mix
of land uses, a range and mix of employment and housing types, high quality public
open space and easy access to local stores and services.
OPA-38 CALLS FOR A POPULATION OF 30,000. IT WILL NOT BE PRACTICAL TO
DUPLICATE, IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, SIMILAR SERVICES TO THOSE
AVAILABLE IN BARRIE. MIDHURST WILL NOT BE A COMPLETE COMMUNITY
AND WILL RELY ON THE AUTOMOBILE TO ACCESS SERVICES
i) Directing development to settlement areas, except where necessary for development
related to the management or use of resources, resource based recreational activities,
and rural land uses that cannot be located in settlement areas.
THERE IS NO DESIGNATED SETTLEMENT AREA (“RESULTING FROM A
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW”; AND NOT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND) AVAILABLE IN
MIDHURST.
j) Directing major growth to settlement areas that offer municipal water and wastewater
systems and limiting growth in settlement areas that are serviced by other forms of
water and wastewater services.
MIDHURST HAS NO WASTEWATER SYSTEM. THE VILLAGE USES SEPTIC TANKS.
k) Prohibiting the establishment of new settlement areas”.
OPA-38 UNOFFICIALLY CONVERTED A STUDY AREA INTO A “SETTLEMENT
AREA”
2.2.3
1.
General Intensi?cation
By the year 2015 and for each year thereafter, a minimum of 40 per cent of all residential
development occurring annually within each upper- and single-tier municipality will be
within the built-up area.
OPA-38 PERMITS OVER 90% OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR
OUTSIDE THE BUILT-UP AREA. Places to Grow Section 5.4.4.3 (page 38) states –
“Municipalities are encouraged to engage the public and stakeholders in local efforts to
implement this Plan and to provide the necessary information to ensure the informed
involvement of local citizens”.
OPA-38 DID NOT ENSURE THE INFORMED INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL CITIZENS
Places to Grow Section 6, Amendment 1, Effective January 2012 states that;
“The intent of this policy is that by 2031 development for all the municipalities in Simcoe
County will not exceed the overall population and population forecasts contained in
Schedule 7”.
OPA-38 EXCEEDS THE POPULATION FORECAST CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE 7 BY
117%.
Places to Grow Section 7 and Schedule 8, Amendment 1, shows that –
Springwater Township does not contain any Primary Settlement Area as defined in
Section 7 and illustrated in Schedule 8.
OPA-38 PLANS FOR THREE NEW, HIGH DENSITY, HOUSING NODES IN A RURAL
AREA. THERE IS NO PRIMARY SETTLEMENT AREA ALLOCATED TO
SPRINGWATER TOWNSHIP.
OPA-38 was adopted by Springwater County in November 2008
OPA-38 was
UNNECESSARY, UNDESIRABLE, UNPOPULAR, and (in 2008) ILLEGALotes
In addition to the obvious legal violations, there are other factors which will require
answers:
• Sustainable water quality and quantity from a well located in the heart of dairy
farmland.
• The discharge of effluent from a population of 30,000 into Willow Creek, only a
few kilometers up-stream from the Minesing Swamp wetlands.
• The financial sustainability of so large a venture, so far from any meaningful
employment. (No Financial Impact Study was undertaken in the development of
OPA-38).
• OPA-38 requires the de-commissioning of over 500 hectares of active, income
producing farmland and replacing it by revenue negative housing, leading to
significant expenditures on the importation of materials into Simcoe County. In
order to be compliant with ratios called for in Places to Grow, it will be necessary
to create 12,000 new jobs and, if we are to replace the lost revenue from farming,
most of these will need to be production jobs. According to the Ontario Ministry
of Finance and Statistics Canada, imports into Ontario have exceeded exports for
the last three years.
• How does the County justify its claim that there was extensive consultation with
the residents of Midhurst in the planning stages of OPA-38, when over 1,000
residents of Midhurst signed a petition refuting this claim?
Appendix C
Detailed comments regarding the Draft Simcoe Official Plan
PART 1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose. Regardless of compliance or not with Provincial Government Policy, it is
hard to see how the Simcoe Plan succeeds in its “attempt to achieve a balance between
the demands for economic development and community building, environmental
conservation, etc.” Even the term economic development must be questioned, because the
proposed developments (county wide) are not guaranteed to have a positive impact on the
economy. For this to occur, development must be accompanied by types of employment
which will produce goods and services and generate income for the County. Nowhere in
this Official Plan is employment of this type defined or required. Development and
construction will remove productive farmland from the economic equation and replaces it
with the unsustainable importation of goods and services.
1.2 For reasons of accuracy, the County might want to revise the third paragraph of this
clause to read “The County is under the direction of the Places to Grow Act, 2005.
Additionally, parts of the County are under the direction of the Niagara Escarpment Act,
1990, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and the
Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008. Provincial Plans are the senior documents …etc”.
1.3 This clause is a ruse. There is an obvious disconnect between the goals stated and the
reality of Simcoe County’s quest for growth and its unfathomable desire to satisfy the
ambitions of developers and land speculators. In its draft Official Plan, Simcoe County
attempts to convince authorities of its desire to be compliant with Provincial Policies,
whilst it continues to ignore many of the recommendations contained in the following
documents:
The Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (e.g. Protection of agricultural lands)
Places to Grow 2006 (pre-amendment – e.g. Directing major growth to settlement areas
that offer municipal water and wastewater systems).
The IGAP report (e.g. Growth Plan Year 2031 population (667,000)
could be accommodated through existing planning commitments).
The Hemson report of May 2008 (“Growth does not fully pay for growth”)
The Springwater Official Plans of 1996 and 2004 (e.g. The “Settlement” area was an
area to be studied to determine where future growth should occur.)
1.4 UnderstoodART 2 Structure and Features of the County
2.1 To 2.4 Understood
PART 3 – Growth Management Strategy
3.1.1 Understood
3.1.2 The Official Plan fails to live up to its own mandate as defined in 3.1.2, as
farmland is not being protected.
3.1.3 The policing of these objectives will be a matter for the appropriate authorities.
Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that approval could be granted for the full amount of
growth which Simcoe County is known to seek (in excess of what is revealed in its
Official Plan). Lake Simcoe is not a Great Lake and is already stressed. Similarly, the
creeks which feed the Nottawasaga River, and indeed the Nottawasaga river itself, do not
have the assimilative capacity to absorb the effluent and run off from large developments.
Georgian Bay will also suffer the effects of increasing levels of pollution.
3.1.4 The objectives are admirable, but the reality is that Canadian entrepreneurs and
the workforce in general, are ill prepared to generate the revenue producing enterprises
needed. Growth itself, if the truth be acknowledged, is unsustainable and depends for its
survival on more growth and the importation of more goods.
3.2 In the current global economic climate, and in the absence of some natural catalyst
(a manufacturing boom or discovery of oil, gold or some other natural resource), it is
difficult so see how a population increase of 53% over the next 19 years, could have a
positive influence on Simcoe prosperity. Unemployment and an increase in social unrest
would seem to be a more probable result.
Table 1.
The population numbers provided for Springwater are only credible if the County repeals
its approval of the Midhurst Secondary Plan.
3.2.1 Understood
3.2.2 Understood
3.2.3 Understood
3.2.4 Understood
3.2.5 Understood. The goals are to be applauded, but unless real jobs can be generated
within the communities, long distance commuting will be the norm, as has been the case
in most development areas within a 1 ½ hours drive of Toronto.
3.2.6 to 3.2.16. Understood. All good policies, if followed.
3.3 General Development Policies
3.3.1 to 3.3.24 All good policies if, followed.
3.4 Land Use Designations
3.4.1 to 3.4.5 Understood. All good policies, if followed.
3.4.6. Grandfather clauses such as this are necessary. However, for reasons stated
elsewhere, approval of the Midhurst Secondary Plan should be repealed by the County
and denied by the Province. This, along with some other contentions plans, should be
specifically listed as exceptions to this clause.
3.5 Settlements
3.5.1 to 3.5.4. All good objectives
3.5.6 to 3.5.33 Understood. Although some would argue that the 20,000 increase
in population for Simcoe County is unnecessary (as reported by Hemson in 2008), there
seems to have been a somewhat fair attempt to satisfy municipalities and developers, at
the same time as limiting population growth and protecting prime agricultural areas.
Conclusions
The balance of the draft Simcoe Official Plan has been read and appears to comply with
the Province of Ontario’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, as
amended. It is unfortunate that this amendment appears to legalize schemes which were
conceived in violation of the laws in place at that time.
Leave a Reply