Midhurst: ‘Special Rule’ makes the sprawl okay

OMB told Barrie wants traffic study, water budget; NVCA considers summer hearing ‘premature’

By Kate Harries

The importance of the “Special Rule” that then Infrastructure Minister Bob Chiarelli brought in to make the Midhurst Secondary Plan legal was spelled out by a lawyer at an Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing.

Ira Kagan, representing the Midhurst Rose Alliance, told board panellist Marc Dehnez that among the special regulations introduced by Chiarelli on January 19, 2012 as part of a Simcoe County addition to the Places to Grow Act, was the “300-hectare rule,” as he called it.

“It said that within the Midhurst settlement area, 300 hectares could proceed to development without worrying about any population forecasts within the growth plan,” Kagan explained.

The special rule allowed the province to withdraw a portion of its appeal of the 756-acre project, Kagan said.

One day, the tale will be told of how it was that the Liberal government introduced a Midhurst-specific amendment exempting this one project from the growth management conditions that apply elsewhere across the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

It will be interesting. After all, the province’s appeal (which is still in effect for the remaining 456 hectares) was based on the fact that the Midhurst project violates key principles of Places to Grow, legislation aimed at controlling sprawl.

The Springwater council chambers were well-filled for the April 9 pre-hearing, with a number of residents in arrendance from Midhurst and elsewhere in Springwater.

Midhurst Rose Alliance Inc., Midhurst Development Doran Road Inc. and Carson Road Development Inc. have appealed to the OMB regarding the failure by Springwater Township and Simcoe County to move forward with decisions on subdivision plans proposed for the 300 hectares.

These and other companies are the parties at the hearing, along with the township, the county, the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and the two school boards.

Lawyer Barnet Kussner, representing Springwater, told Dehnez that “from the township’s standpoint this has been and very much will remain a public process.” He announced that as part of that public process, the township will be holding another open house and public meeting at which it will provide its position and give the public a chance to comment.

On application by president Sandy Buxton, the Midhurst Ratepayers Association was accepted as a participant. There were no objections. A participant may provide information to the board but, unlike a party, may not make arguments or call witnesses.

Resident John Lusher of Russell Rd. in Midhurst, who expressed concern about the effect of the development on his water supply, was also accepted as a participant, as was the city of Barrie.

“Our concerns are the collective impact of the development,” Barrie lawyer Robyn Carlson told Dehnez.

One issue is the effect of the added population on roads and traffic. Barrie wants a traffic impact study and assurance that any additional costs will be borne by the developer, not the city.

Carlson said the other major issue is the watershed. The city wants a water budget to be prepared assessing potential threats to Barrie’s water quality and quantity.

An April 7 staff report to Barrie city council referred to a water budget completed for the city (based on 2009 usage) that included Barrie, Midhurst, Angus, Stroud and Innisfil Heights in the study area of communities using groundwater sources.

During discussion of possible dates for the next pre-hearing conference and the actual five-day OMB hearing, the NVCA’s lawyer advised Dehnez that the conservation authority considers a summer hearing date to be premature.  Gordon Hunter did not elaborate, but observers wondered whether the environmental assessment currently underway might be the issue.

That matter is to be argued at the second pre-hearing, set for July 3 and 4. Depending on the outcome, a full hearing could proceed in the week of August 25.