Not happening: Marshall, Kramp suggest County publicize ‘extraordinary’ opportunity for resident participation at OMB

Midland-Penetanguishene are a preferred settlement area, but Midhurst to be three times the size of Penetang, mayor points out
By Kate Harries AWARE News Network – June 11 2013
At an Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing on April 19, after hearing a submission from Sandy Agnew of AWARE Simcoe regarding Simcoe County’s failure to hold public meetings on the draft modified Official Plan, the OMB extended a registration deadline, allowing residents to register as participants up to June 20 – the day of the next pre-hearing.
The following excerpts are transcribed from a videotape of discussion of the issue at the last meeting of Simcoe County Council on May 28.

Councillor Gerry Marshall (Penetanguishene) …The lawyer stood up here in front of us and when we asked about public consultation and public open houses … the answer was that we didn’t need to have those consultations, the process moved forward in a fashion that that he was happy with, and in fact no substantive changes had actually occurred to the document…. And so when actually I made a motion to have a public information session, we actually voted that down as the County Council …
But then our lawyer once at the OMB told the OMB there’s substantive changes to the document …  So I have some issues with the way the lawyers handled it and I want some clarification on some of these actions from our staff … Because from our perspective we’re left with a little bit of egg on our face based on the legal counsels’ activities and how they behaved.
… The second thing  … my question is to our media department, is how do we broadcast to our citizens the fact that their opportunity to speak on the Official Plan … now remains (at) the OMB.
… The third question really is … how we are directing growth (to seven preferred settlement areas) … Maybe someone can explain to me what’s going on in Midhurst because that certainly, the secondary plan for Midhurst argues against what Mr Parks was explaining to us in corporate services (committee).
Planning director David Parks I did speak to our solicitor and I think the ‘substantial changes’ comment was taken out of context. The substantial changes … were the fact that the Growth Plan Amendment was inserted into the Official Plan, that’s the extent of the substantial changes.
… When we said… generally, the Official Plan is the same context, the same structure, that is true. So it’s all a contextual discussion, going forward so we stand by the words, saying our portion of the plan is intact it’s generally the same. The substantial changes are in context.
The question from the board member was, these changes are substantial because they are legislative changes inserted into the sections on growth. So that answers that question.
When we spoke about settlement areas in corporate services, I indicated to you that all our growth is directed to settlement areas which is part of the Growth Plan, we have 91 settlement areas, we have seven primary settlement areas, so there is a distinction, so we recognize all the municipalities all have different magnitudes of growth – Stayner, for instance, Coldwater, they are not primary settlement areas but they are serviced communities, growth can go to those, to name but a few. The primary settlement areas of course are Alliston, Bradford, Midland-Penetanguishene, to name a few, and the majority of the focus is on there, but again the growth can go to other settlement areas…
Marshall To go back to the Midhurst one for a second. The growth is going to the preferred settlement areas. Midhurst is actually earmarked to be three times the size of Penetanguishene, which is a preferred settlement area, so I was a little confused on that how we’re prioritizing it that way – the question really was how do we indicate or communicate to our citizens their opportunity to speak on the Official Plan now only exists at the OMB, and where that hearing will be, and how the processes will go through. Are citizens aware now how they can speak?
Parks I would say yes, we spent, through the communications department we spent over $7,000 in advertising costs to advertise the hearing. I think it was nine different newspapers indicating when the hearing was and the obligation of the municipality was to make sure that we had notice in the newspaper plus we sent I going to guess about 400 notices by personal mail as well as, don’t quote me on the exact number but around, it was a fairly significantly high number, and we had to come to that meeting and then the board – we had three applications so that everybody could sign up with all their emails for the board, confirmed notice will be done by email and to those people who didn’t have email it will be done by regular mail.
And there’s still opportunity for participants to come on June 20 through special permission of the board, to say they want to be added to that list.
So we’ve met the legislative requirements, the notice requirements and everything else now is in the board’s hands so we follow their direction, it’s not ours to follow it’s the board’s now, to direct us how they want things to move forward from this particular case.
With regards to Midhurst, it is a growth area, it’s one of the 91 settlement areas, it was recognized under the Springwater Official Plan and it was a matter that’s dealt separately from our OP, in other words as you know there was a member of the board appealed the council decision and then they withdrew that, so that’s in place under a previous OMB order … Actually a previous council decision which was originally appealed by the ministry which now has been withdrawn
Councillor Stephan Kramp (Midland) Just to verify on that last discussion. The OMB stated that individuals from the county could add their names to the participant list at the OMB up to June 20.
So just to clarify, you’re suggesting that it’s the OMB that has to kind of make that public, and make them aware? Or would it be possible for us to send out that communication and let our residents know that the OMB is providing that opportunity to add their names to a participant list subject to OMB approval? Who has the ability to communicate that to our members so they can go and take advantage of that opportunity?
Parks I would have to clarify that with our solicitor … We’ve done the prescribed procedures under law which we had to do. The board’s made a special privilege. The board chairman said if somebody else wants to show up here, based on the discussion, they can come and seek permission, we will grant that notice. That was a board decision and I don’t think we can provide notice of that.
Certainly it’s public information as it’s a public hearing but for us to start to provide other notice, then we could get into some issues, well, why did you in this case, and not other cases, every time a board member says something. I think that’s a dangerous path to follow
They have opportunity because the group* expressed that they knew other people and they were going to solicit them so I think, leave it at that, that would be my recommendation but I could check with our solicitor
Kramp I know we don’t have to open up a can of worms, but as a courtesy, would it be possible put it on the County website just to let residents know that they have this opportunity that’s been provided by the OMB to have their names added to the list so they can participate in that OMB process?
…A significant number of people and organizations in the county would not be aware of that and I don’t know if a lot of residents are really accustomed to go on an OMB website to see what the decision was – but this is an extraordinary opportunity that the OMB has provided and perhaps we can let our residents know that they have this opportunity to put their names on the participant list.
Parks As I said, we did provide significant notice and people have that opportunity to come to the hearing, and those people who were at the hearing are on the list. The board dealt with a specific question from a specific individual group* and they said they had a number of people that they wanted to. Again I’m going to have to defer to our legal people before I recommend that the Clerk bring something on notice because you have to understand the board chair said that it was her discretion, or their discretion, whether that person is added or not. So I don’t want to mislead people, because they have to come up and stand accountable before the board and the board can question them and other people can decide, you know, other solicitors there can challenge that view. So it is a legal process, so I don’t want to misinform, say come on to the hearing – and then people say, I want to be on the list because there’s a notice and then the board says it’s my decision …
Councillor Rick Lloyd (Collingwood) Have we followed the prescriptive process set out by the province of Ontario?
Parks Yes.
Lloyd Have we had our public meeting, have we done that as per the prescriptive process set out by the Province of Ontario?
Parks Yes.
Lloyd We’ve done all the process (inaudible) all every way we’re supposed to up until now?
Parks Yes.
Lloyd I’m satisfied with what we’ve done and I feel enough’s enough.

*AWARE Simcoe