Springwater decision on Midhurst: Footing the bill
A special Township Council meeting was held on Tuesday September 17, to answer some of the questions posed by residents at the Public Information meeting of May 14. These questions concerned the massive Midhurst Secondary Plan (MSP) proposed for Springwater Township.
The evening featured a presentation from Township lawyer Bernard Krussner, who provided a history of how this development proposal came about. Some of the points made by Mr. Kessner were challenged during the ensuing question period.
Game changer?
Mr. Kussner told the audience that the province’s 2006 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was a game changer, because it was the first time the province committed all municipalities to specific population targets to accommodate the large growth anticipated through the year 2031.
But in reality, the 2006 Growth Plan placed a cap on the population growth in the county, NOT a demand for municipalities to take more people. In 2010, the province’s Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan went further.
Recognizing that some Township Official Plans (e.g. Springwater) contained settlement areas far larger than required to meet provincial population needs, Proposed Amendment 1 suggested the imposition of Interim Settlement Area Boundaries, no larger than that required to meet 2031 population projections. Additionally in Schedule 7 of the proposed amendment, Springwater’s population was to be limited to 24,000.
Colllns request
In January 2011, Mayor Linder Collins wrote to the Ministers of Infrastructure and Municipal Affairs and Housing saying, “Proposed Amendment 1, as released fails to recognize some of the specific challenges that face the Township. The Township of Springwater has identified concerns with the revised Schedule 7 particularly the population and employment distribution forecasts, the establishment of the interim settlement area boundaries, and the transition policies of the Amendment. Population and Employment allocations should not be capped in the Amendment. Despite the request made by Springwater in September 2009, the Township was not allocated a further increase in population or employment allocations”.
Special rule
The requirement to delineate Interim Settlement Boundaries was ultimately dropped from Amendment 1, but the population cap remains in effect today. So how can the Midhurst Secondary Plan exceed this population cap? Well, Amendment 1, which was released in January 2012, came with a set of Transition Regulations. Believe it or not, these included a “Special Rule” specifically for Midhurst, granting permission for the first 300 hectares to proceed and making a special concession which allocated enough population to Simcoe County to cover at least some of their requests.
And what of the OMB ruling referred to by Mr. Kussner? The Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association never made it to the hearing. We were dismissed at a pre-hearing, before anyone from the MRA got to speak. The board ruled that the OMB hearing for the Simcoe Official Plan was the wrong forum to appeal the Midhurst Secondary Plan.
Study area
The disputed settlement area, depicted on Schedule 5.1 of Simcoe County’s Official Plan, contains protected farmland which the authors of the Springwater Official Plan stated in affidavits, was never intended for development. MRA had submitted affidavits to the OMB, from the retired Director of Planning for Simcoe County, two retired Springwater councillors and a letter from the retired Director of Planning for Springwater Township – the planner who drew the Midhurst settlement boundary – all testifying that the so called settlement area was an area to study to determine whereabouts future development would occur. Seemingly this was not relevant to the OMB process.
There was some discussion at the meeting regarding penalties for cancellation of the MSP. Some have difficulty grasping what case a developer would have, when land acquisitions at the time were purely speculative and according to a recent Globe and Mail article, farmland has increased in value across Canada by 12% per year during the last five years (coincidently since the farms were acquired in Midhurst). That’s a 76% return on investment!
Springwater is now in the throes of the Environmental Assessment (paid for by the developers), which hopefully includes a financial impact study. As you may read elsewhere in this edition, it’s not over until studies can prove that this massive development will not leave the rest of Springwater footing the bill for the maintenance of Midhurst Infrastructure. (Springwater residents may want to reflect on the cost to the province and the federal government, of maintaining Toronto’s infrastructure).
David Strachan
President, Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association
Leave a Reply