AWARE Simcoe’s 18 questions about the county’s Official Plan

Questions for Simcoe County Official Plan OMB Public Info Sessions, to be held in Midhurst April 20 

Submitted by AWARE Simcoe March 31, 2015

Preamble 

AWARE Simcoe appreciates County Council holding the Public Information Sessions on April 20, 2015. We are submitting these questions in advance so that staff has an opportunity to prepare answers for the April 20th meetings. However we reserve the right to ask additional questions during the Q&A sessions if they arise.

AWARE Simcoe and other groups are made up of citizens who believe that protecting our water, Foodland and the environment is essential to ensuring that future generations will enjoy the same bountiful life that we currently enjoy. We believe that the best way to do that is by governing our communities in an open and transparent manner.

Our members do not participate in our activities with the goal or expectation of any personal gain. Quite the contrary, our members spend their own resources in the pursuit of our goals “For The Greater Good” of present and future generations.

Contrast AWARE Simcoe motives with those of the development industry whose motives seem almost entirely to be driven by personal gain.

Simcoe County Council adopted an updated version of the Simcoe County Official Plan (SCOP) in January, 2013, which was significantly changed from the original 2008 SCOP version, without public meetings to explain those changes. Written public comments were largely ignored.

AWARE Simcoe considers that the public has been denied their legal right under the Planning Act to a public meeting for the January, 2013 version of the SCOP and that a majority of the 2010-2014 County Council did not appreciate our motives or value citizens’ input. We are very hopeful that the 2014-2018 County Council will continue to respond to the wishes of the citizens of Simcoe County who share our vision for Simcoe County, Barrie and Orillia.

That 2013 SCOP version has once again been greatly altered during the OMB process, which in our opinion, has not provided for meaningful public participation.

Prior to the next Phases of the SCOP OMB hearing commencing on May 8, 2015 there will be “expert meetings” taking place in private session from which the public is forbidden to participate. Agreements reached in these meetings will be presented to the OMB for approval without endorsement or even knowledge of County Council.

The following are questions that we submit with the expectation that they will be addressed on April 20.

1. Given that there is vast agricultural expertise within the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture, local Christian Farmers Association and other farm groups, will the County seek input from these groups before agreeing to changes in the Agricultural, Natural Heritage, Aggregate and Rural Sections of the SCOP which are still under review before the OMB?

2. Given that there is vast expertise in natural history, wildlife and ecological matters within various groups such as naturalist clubs, nature conservancies, conservation clubs, First Nations, and agencies such as NVCA, LSRCA and SSEA, will the County seek input from such organizations before agreeing to changes in the Greenland, Natural Heritage, Aggregate and Rural Sections of the SCOP which are still under review before the OMB?

3. Why did the County request lower intensification and density targets for Simcoe County when the lower targets conflict with the principles of the Growth Plan? If the intention is to use less farmland, why is the County approving lower targets that will translate to increased land consumption?

4. Please explain the locations of all new development proposals now approved for Simcoe County and calculate how much Class 1, 2 and 3 farm lands will be lost to these developments?

5. Given that Simcoe County has a finite and irreplaceable amount of Classes 1, 2 and 3 agricultural lands, how does the new SCOP put an end to the loss of this precious resource?

6. Given that the County played a lead role in developing the Simcoe County Food and Agricultural Charter and that the Charter has been endorsed by all the 16 municipalities and numerous agencies and groups, will the County incorporate the Charter and its principles into the SCOP?

7. Schedule 5.1 shows Greenlands removed from within all Settlement Areas. Given that this has clearly been done at the request of the development industry and without consultation with environmental groups, agricultural organizations or the public, will the County consult with these groups before recommending to the OMB to approve Schedule 5.1? What impact would the change have on the integrity of the Greenlands system of the County?

8. In Policy 3.8.10 the word “Provincially” was removed before “significant wetlands”. Are provincially significant wetlands (in particular, the Minesing Wetlands), wetlands larger than 2 ha and wetlands smaller than 2 ha if locally significant protected under this Policy?

9. Given that our society’s wellbeing depends on the health of our environment including clean air and clean water, how will the new SCOP protect air and water quality? Does Simcoe County intend to study and conclude what the maximum carrying capacity of the County is in terms of human population?

10. The January, 2013 version of the SCOP has been greatly altered by the OMB due in large part to arguments put forward by existing large land holders. It appears to AWARE Simcoe that planning decisions are being decided by the OMB according to land ownership rather than by the needs and desires of the residents. We call this “planning by land ownership.” Will the County take a more proactive role in the future to design communities to be more “complete” as described by Provincial Policies?

11. Can you provide an explanation why (in your opinion) former MMAH Minister Chiarelli felt compelled to write a ‘Special Rule’ for Midhurst given that the MSP did not conform to the Provincial Policy Statement and Places To Grow?

12. Given that the County lawyer, Mr. Beaman, asserted to the OMB that the OMB process was a substitute for the legislated public meetings required for changes to municipal official plans under the Planning Act, please explain how the quasi-judicial process of the OMB fulfills that public meeting function and how citizens are able to comment at the OMB as they would at a public meeting?

13. Please explain why the County has taken the position at the OMB that Participants will not be allowed to comment on proposed changes to the SCOP that have not yet been presented to the OMB.

14. Given that there is vast expertise in the concept of Healthy Communities within agencies such as the Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit, Sustainable Severn Sound, Conservation Authorities and Food Partners Alliance, will the County consult with these agencies and the public before presenting these Sections of the SCOP to the OMB for approval.

15. Given that there is a vast knowledge about Cultural Heritage among the First Nations communities and numerous historical groups within the County, will the County consult with First Nations communities and historical societies before presenting these sections of the SCOP to the OMB for approval?

16. Please explain and provide a copy of the “Memorandum of Understanding” that is referenced in the SCOP in Part 1 – Introduction under Section 1.2 – Scope, Effect, and Legislative Authority.

17. The County is maintaining that their criteria for “Significant Woodlands” supersede that of the PPS. Are significant woodlands under 10 ha within the Simcoe Lowlands given adequate protection?

18. If the County recognizes public concerns relating to maintaining the “community character and features” of the communities, why did the County remove the term “community character and features” from the Section titled Settlement Form?

These questions have been compiled by our members. Thank you for this opportunity and we look forward to your answers.

Sandy Agnew, AWARE Simcoe