‘Staff crossing line’: Marshall questions OMB motion to turf Midhurst ratepayers

Lawrence agrees, citing concern over loss of agricultural land
AWARE Simcoe June 15 2013
Penetanguishene Mayor Gerry Marshall expressed anger and frustration at Wednesday’s corporate services committee meeting that Simcoe County has put forward a motion to dismiss the Midhurst Ratepayers Association from the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the amended Official Plan. He was supported by Tiny Mayor George Lawrence. Springwater Mayor Linda Collins made no comment. Following are excerpts from a transcript of the discussion:

Councillor Gerry Marshall (Penetanguishene) I have received emails with concerns that the county has introduced a motion to dismiss the MRA from the OMB. If so, can we get an update and have an understanding how that can occur without County Council direction?
Planning director David Parks Yes, we are in the OMB process, it’s part of the process. We put forward a motion, a motion to say here’s our parameters for that matter (Midhurst Secondary Plan), that we think that matter already been decided by the Ontario Municipal Board, and it’s a fair and open process, we  provided our information to that party (the MRA) in advance, they have an opportunity to respond and there will be a hearing on this – so it’s part of the OMB process for that and for the Official Plan. It’s all prescribed and a fair and open hearing and a day scheduled for it, so it’s part of the OMB process.
Marshall I’m still a little confused that there’s no county direction to do this. I’ve been harping for some time on the need to have an open house, we need to engage with the public in the process so take some time and engage, possibly participate in the OMB process… So here we are again saying to our citizens – saying (with) the OMB process, now you’re getting to speak, that’s your opportunity to speak in the process, and all of a sudden I find that staff find a way to put a motion that actually mitigates what I just informed them they can do. 
So I’m real angry that staff is going off on a direction of their own, when the spirit of our conversation, and the spirit of the response in particular from Mr Parks’ answer to my question, was that the process is such that our citizens get to speak at the OMB. Now we’re putting a barrier up there. I don’t know what our motivation would be put a barrier up to stop citizens from engaging in the process. What could possibly be gained by shutting this down? Let them let the OMB decide the process to be. Let our citizens speak clearly.
Parks That’s what is transpiring. We’ve put a motion forward to saying here are our legal arguments on this particular issue. We lay it all out in affidavits, all the data, all the information is distributed, this is our argument. Now you present your argument and the board will make a decision. They have a full day hearing scheduled. They can take as long as they need to present their views in whatever form they feel appropriate so it’s an open hearing, we are following our protocol and procedure under the OMB. So I think it’s as fair and open as it can be.
Marshall …I’m taking personal offence at this I really am. We had a process of trying to engage the citizens and we put citizens through a (inaudible) process that could be easily mitigated by a cup of coffee and four hours and I will continue to press this issue…
It’s unpleasant, it’s maybe confrontational versus conversational. I have a real  personal issue (that) we’re finding a way to stop citizens speaking to the OMB. I understand staff have a certain amount of autonomy …(but) cutting the citizens out of the conversation, I’m telling you that in my opinion they’re crossing the line in a big fashion.
Warden Cal Patterson (Wasaga Beach) It’s at the OMB. It’s up to the discretion of the OMB if they want to hear the comments. And we certainly had a (inaudible), we had 17,000 cups of coffee during the whole process. It’s at the OMB, it’s up to the OMB to make their decision.
Councillor George Lawrence (Tiny) To address Councillor Marshall’s comments, is there a time frame still available? If there’s that big an issue over this and the people feel they haven’t been heard is there a time frame still available that something could be done as Councillor Marshall said, four hours and a cup of coffee?
There’s no place for argument that the opportunity is there, and I support Councillor Marshall, I agree with him, if there is a problem here, you don’t want something flowing back a you after the fact, saying I never got the opportunity
I agree with what the warden has stated… They can say what they want. But they are initially not going to the OMB, they are going through the County, we who make the decision on this.
I support what Councillor Marshall’s indicated, I don’t know whether there’s a time frame or some options are available but it’s a serious concern – and it’s part of what I brought up this morning when I was talking about the loss of property and lands and the use of farmlands and agriculture. It’s a serious issue and if there are concerns from these people – if we can afford the four hours, I would strongly support it.
Parks …by proceeding to lay clearly and precisely what our argument is, and then they have an opportunity to put their argument and say, well, we’re wrong and then they present why we’re wrong to the board and the board will adjudicate that. With regards to the participants coming to the hearing, as I indicated to council and the last corporate services meeting, the board ruled that any one who wants to be a participant can come on June 20 and ask the board to consider them to be a participant and they can added to the list to participate in the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. That option has been opened up by the board. But you’re right Mr. Chair, the Ontario Municipal Board now takes the place of council… so it’s totally in their hands and we’re following proper procedure which is required.
Deputy Warden Harry Hughes (Oro-Medonte) There’s another complication to this. If we seek advice from everyone, then the next question that we can fall into is, what we do with that advice? If in fact we hear people, they put forward concerns, and we don’t act upon those concerns… then we get ourselves into another situation. And so the complication that would occur by having public input at this stage would be the potential criticism of you just went through the motions and you really didn’t do anything with it.  And I believe that once again we have to be reminded, we’re into a legal process here and that there is an avenue to make sure that people can have their concerns brought into the OMB. To me, there’s a possibility there’s a pitfall there.
Discussion at May county council meeting