Settlement boundaries should be identified

Rural Intentions – a word from Craighurst
by Lynette Mader Springwater News July 18 2013
Our little community is fairly bursting with artistic talent. I mentioned the Arts Medonte activities last column and have also learned that two neighbours – Fran Poole and Marianna Gilbert – have artwork at the Quest Gallery in Midland. More on that when I can get up there to check it out.

In the meantime, as much as I appreciate culture and recognize that cultural growth is often tied to population growth, I need to get a bit of a rant off my chest. I was interested to read an update on the Midhurst Secondary Plan in the last issue of the Springwater news wherein the settlement boundary was being called into question. Well finally, I thought. The issue of settlement boundaries is indeed the hot button when it comes to the Simcoe County and township official plans. Here in Craighurst, the settlement boundary was clearly identified in the township’s official plan. However, provincial guidelines dictate infrastructure requirements (sewers and water) that necessitate a larger development area in order to reach a cost per unit figure that is palatable (profitable) for the developer.  And so, the secondary plan sets out a larger boundary area.
Planning is complex stuff, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read a line on a map: especially when it is a big red line that is identified as SETTLEMENT AREA in the legend. Such as the Craighurst settlement boundary was identified for quite some time in both the township and the county official plans. But a few months back, when I inquired with the county as to how they were dealing with the expanded settlement boundary in the Craighurst secondary plan in light of the provincial requirements, the response I got was that “no amendment is required in the current County official plan because settlement boundaries are not specifically identified.”  What? Really?  Sure enough, in a more recent edition of the county plan, settlement boundaries for rural hamlets are identified with big circles. Not actual boundary lines, but big circles that suggest “hey, we reserve the right to change our minds.” 
Well okay, but be honest about it. Because I can dig back into previous county plans and find the clearly identified boundary for Craighurst (and probably other hamlets): a big red line that is labeled Settlement Area. Just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding something, I asked a friend to do it and he found it too. And he’s an engineer so I trust his ability to read maps and plans. So the boundary was delineated. Now it’s not. How does that happen?
The provincial plan clearly states that a settlement boundary cannot be arbitrarily expanded unless the municipality undertakes a comprehensive review of its official plan and demonstrates that the proposed expansion cannot be accommodated elsewhere in the municipality. And so now we have circles on a map instead of “specifically identified” boundary lines.  Hmmmm.
Instead of being vague, why not just say that the provincial growth plan changed the rules and municipalities need to revisit their earlier thinking?  One of the first rules of public relations is to be transparent. This might be hard to believe given the way that political PR machines are run, but it’s true. So my message to municipalities is this: be up front. Tell me what you plan to do and explain why you need to do it. I might not like it better than the obfuscated details that are carelessly bandied about, but I’ll sure respect you more.