Many unanswered questions left by OMB’s decision to exclude Midhurst group

Simcoe County Official Plan builds on questionable settlement area boundary
By David Strachan Midhurst Ratepayers Association August 3 2013
On August 2, 2013, the Ontario Municipal Board issued its decision, dismissing the Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association’s (MRA) appeal of the Simcoe Official Plan [SOP], case No. 091167. The decision was made during the pre-hearing phase of the OMB process, and before the MRA had an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, as would have been its right in a full OMB hearing.

The Motion to dismiss the MRA was brought by Simcoe County, supported by both the Township of Springwater and all the developers involved in the Midhurst Secondary Plan [MSP] seeking to build 10,000 dwellings on 1,800 acres of farmland surrounding the village of Midhurst. As the MSP itself is not currently before the OMB, MRA’s appeal was restricted to a single issue in the SOP; namely, the large area north of Barrie, which is depicted on the County’s Schedule 5.1 as the Midhurst “Settlement”. This area is approximately three times the size of the existing Midhurst Settlement and was first shown in Springwater’s 1998 Official Plan, where it was described as “the study area within which the contemplated Secondary Plans will set out future growth opportunities.”
MRA’s key evidence came from Simcoe County’s former director of planning, Ian Bender, who maintained in his affidavit that no settlement area boundary is set out in the SOP, only a study area within which there will be future growth opportunities. He quotes the SOP as stating “previous development has generally expanded the settlement area to its limits as defined by the adjacent highway and surrounding agricultural and environmental lands.”
MRA also provided affidavits from two citizens of Springwater, who had been councilors in 1998, and a letter of opinion from the planner who first drew the contested settlement boundary. All testified that, although this area was intended to support development opportunities, there was never any intention to develop it in its entirety. A review of the 1998 Springwater Official Plan makes it clear that all farmland was to be protected from non-agricultural activities.
In its decision, the OMB focused on two main points:
1.  The Simcoe County OMB case was not the appropriate forum to challenge irregularities in the MSP.
2.  Why did the MRA fail to appeal Simcoe County’s approval of the MSP within the mandated period?
The first point is valid: it would indeed have been difficult for the OMB panel to rule in favour of the MRA, as doing so would have raised enough issues to swamp the entire Simcoe County OMB process.
Even the second point is difficult to explain in a few words. It’s true that the MRA had 20 days to appeal Simcoe County’s 2011 decision; but the decision came out of the blue three years after the County had disqualified the MSP for failing to comply with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Provincial Growth Plan and the Simcoe County Official Plan. Who would have expected the County to suddenly approve a Settlement Plan it had already dismissed as being illegal?  The non-conformity of the Plan was confirmed two weeks later by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in its appeal to the OMB.
In the Simcoe OMB case, the Board has the task of studying issues throughout the entire County of Simcoe. MRA had hoped that evidence from qualified planners and councilors regarding the misrepresented settlement area might have been sufficient for the Board to allow us to participate in the full hearings.  But this was not to be.
Following this OMB decision, many questions remain unanswered:
1.  Why did Simcoe County staff completely change their position and recommend that Council approve a non-conforming plan?
2.  Having appealed the MSP to the OMB, why did the Province then suddenly permit development of the first 300 hectares by ministerial order?
3.  Where is the logic in permitting developers to replace 1,800 acres of productive farmland with 3,500 non-productive homes in an area where there are no jobs?
4.  Why is there no evident correlation between growth in housing and growth in productivity, especially in rural areas?
5.  When will the Township of Springwater (and other municipalities) publish financial impact studies proving that there is a net benefit in allowing property developers to unnecessarily degrade the charm of the Ontario countryside?