Simcoe County staff report on Midhurst requests for population allocations

Text of Report CCW 16-189 – Applications for a Portion of the 20,000 Population Program – Midhurst Requests

From Simcoe County website – link to agenda, scroll down to item 14

To: HEARING – 20,000 Population Program

Meeting Date: May 24, 2016

Subject: Applications for a Portion of the 20,000 Population Program Township of Springwater, Settlement Area of Midhurst

RECOMMENDATION

That the 20,000 Population Program Hearing consider the recommended options as outlined in the subject report:

• Option 1 – Approve all requests as outlined in the subject report dated May 24, 2016, titled Applications for a Portion of the 20,000 Population Program Township of Springwater, Settlement Area of Midhurst OR

• Option 2 – Approve none of the requests as outlined in the subject report dated May 24, 2016, titled Applications for a Portion of the 20,000 Population Program Township of Springwater, Settlement Area of Midhurst. OR

• Option 3 – Approve selected requests as outlined in the subject report dated May 24, 2016, titled Applications for a Portion of the 20,000 Population Program Township of Springwater, Settlement Area of Midhurst.

Executive Summary:

The following report provides a summary of the requests made under the County of Simcoe’s 20,000 population program.

Location: Township of Springwater, Settlement Area of Midhurst

Proposal: This report addresses a total of five (5) separate requests for an allocation of population totalling 6,120 (adjusted from that reported in Item CCW 16-057) from the 20,000 Population Program available to the County of Simcoe pursuant to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe policy 6.3.2.2 to finalize a re-designation of the lands for urban uses for multiple land holdings in the Settlement Area of Midhurst. Table 1 attached as Schedule 2 to this Item provides information on the location, proponent and amount of each request. A Notice of Hearing is attached as Schedule 5 to this report to outline the hearing process for the scheduled Council meeting on May 24, 2016 in accordance with By-law No. 6544.

County File: SP-OPA-0838

Municipal File: OPA No. 38

OMB Case No. PL111181

Schedule 1 to this report shows the location of each request. Schedule 2 provides details on each request in a table format.

Planning Justification Reports for each of the Population Requests can be located on the County website by following the link http://www.simcoe.ca/Planning/Pages/20000-population-program.aspx

Background/Analysis/Options:

Midhurst has been identified as a settlement area within the Township of Springwater since 1982. The Township’s Official Plan required that a Secondary Plan be prepared to provide a detailed land use plan and policies for regulating the land use and development within the Secondary Plan Area. Official Plan Amendment No. 38 (OPA No. 38) provides a detailed plan and policies for land uses and development within the Midhurst Secondary Plan Area.

Growth and development within the Secondary Plan Area is expected to occur over a long-term planning horizon. At full build-out, it is anticipated that the Midhurst settlement area will have an additional 10,000 new dwelling units with a diversity of types and densities as well as employment including institutional, administration/government and mixed use developments, parkland and a trails network. According to the municipality’s growth management strategy, Midhurst is identified as a primary settlement area and is expected to accommodate a large proportion of the Township’s growth over the long-term.

The Township of Springwater Official Plan Amendment No. 38 was adopted by municipal Council on November 3, 2008 by By-law 2008-106.

The County approved OPA No. 38 on October 12, 2011 with modifications to establish a phasing strategy for the proposed growth and development and requirements for certain matters to be considered and satisfied prior to the release of subsequent phases. The first phase of development contemplates 3,850 dwelling units which would result in an approximate population of 11,000 using an average of 2.86 persons per unit (PPU).

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal

The County’s decision on OPA No. 38 was subsequently appealed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On January 19, 2012, Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan (GPA#1) came into effect providing new policies for the Simcoe Sub-Area including population and employment forecasts for the local municipalities to plan and manage growth.

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Amendment #1

GPA#1 established Policy 6.3.2.2 which provided that the County of Simcoe County with a discretionary policy where it may approve additional population under certain circumstances. Under these circumstances where adopted official plans or adopted official plan amendments regarding lands within a settlement area that re-designate lands not for urban uses to lands for urban uses that are in excess (require) of population for what is needed for a time horizon of up to 20 years or to accommodate the population forecasts, additional population can be assigned to the property (known as the 20,000 Population Program).

On November 28, 2012, the Ministry partially withdrew its appeal on OPA No. 38 on 300 hectares of the approximately 756 hectares to be re-designated ‘urban’ through the secondary plan, as shown in an attachment to the Ministry’s letter which is attached as Schedule 3 to this report. The Ministry maintains an appeal on the remaining 456 hectares of lands in the Midhurst settlement area.

All of the requests for population are located on lands that are subject to the Ministry’s remaining appeal with the exception of 285622 Ontario Ltd. (Midves) which has its own appeal of OPA No. 38 based on the proposed designation of their lands. Within the partial withdrawal letter, the Ministry noted that they maintained an appeal because there was no population allocation to support further re-designations, however the letter went on to describe that the remaining lands could seek allocation through the 20,000 Population Program or pursue them through future planning exercises based on amendments to the Growth Plan forecasts. Since the date of the Ministry’s partial withdrawal letter, Growth Plan Amendment 2 has come into effect which allocates an additional 81,000 in population to the County between 2031 and 2041.

The following landowners have requested population under the 20,000 Population Program:

• Estate of Marie Louise Frankcom (Frankcom)
• 285622 Ontario Ltd. (Midves)
• Midhurst Development Doran Road Inc. / Carson Road Development Inc. (MDDRI/CRDI)
• Carson Trail Estates
• 451082 Ontario Ltd. (Walton)

Even with the partial withdrawal of the Ministry’s appeal to OPA No. 38, there are some site-specific appeals to OPA No. 38 which include some of those landowners requesting population allocation. Some of the landowners requesting population allocation are also registered parties with appeals to the County Official Plan.

As part of the OMB hearing proceedings on OPA No. 38, one or more of the appellant parties has requested that the Ontario Municipal Board hear a motion on the jurisdiction of the Board to render a decision on a request for population through the 20,000 Population Program. The potential motion seeks to determine if the OMB is able to approve allocation of population without County Council approval; or, to reverse County Council’s denial of a request for population. A five day motion hearing is scheduled for July 18 to 22, 2016 to deal with the jurisdiction question. County Council’s decision on the population requests in this Item will become part of the submissions to the Board at the motion hearing in July.

The OMB hearing on the remaining OPA No. 38 appeals is scheduled as a six week hearing from September 19 to October 28, 2016.

It should be noted that staff would recommend that if population is allocated to any of the requests where the landowners have outstanding appeals or have party status in the OMB hearings on OPA No. 38 and/or the County Official Plan, that County Council should provide direction to the County solicitor to pursue withdrawals and/or execute minutes of settlement to resolve the outstanding matters.

20,000 Population Program Request

Policy 6.3.2.2 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) outlines that the County of Simcoe may approve adopted official plans or adopted official plan amendments regarding lands within a settlement area that redesignate lands not for urban uses to lands for urban uses that are in excess of what is needed for a time horizon of up to 20 years or to accommodate the population forecasts. The Program expires on January 19, 2017.

Policies 3.5.10 to 3.5.13 of the County of Simcoe Official Plan (2012) address the implementation of Growth Plan policy 6.3.2.2. These policies provide criteria that must be met and additional considerations for implementing the 20,000 Population Program.

To allow the lands that are subject to the requests to be changed to lands for urban uses, requests for allocation of a portion of the 20,000 population program is required. Requests for allocation within Midhurst were received from five (5) proponents on eight (8) properties described in Schedule 2. The requests total an overall population of 6,120 associated with 2,277 residential units within the proposed developments in Neighbourhoods 1, 2 and 3.

It should be noted that the population requests for MDDRI/CRDI and Walton have been revised from their initial submissions noted in the January 2016 Ledger which has resulted in a decrease in the overall population request. Additionally, the County has adjusted the population requests for MDDRI/CRDI and Frankcom to reflect the County’s land budget persons per unit (PPUs) in consultation with the Township of Springwater.

Population Considerations

It is important to note that any allocation of population under this program will be counted towards the municipality’s 2041 population forecasts as per Amendment 2 of the Growth Plan.

As noted in staff report Item CCW 16-057, the population forecast for the County of Simcoe is 416,000 in 2031 and 497,000 by 2041; a net increase of 81,000 as detailed through Growth Plan Amendment 2. The 20,000 Population Program allows the County to borrow population from future allocations (2041) to meet current needs as described in the Growth Plan and clarified by the Ministry.

To date, 2,652 in population has been approved (17,348 remaining) in requests under the 20,000 Population Program, for requests within the Town of Collingwood, Township of Adjala-Tosorontio and Town of Penetanguishene. No population has been allocated to Springwater to date.

The importance of the 2041 population forecast for the County is the potential impact that allocating all of the 20,000 may have on the County’s remaining 2041 population allocation to the local municipalities. When the 20,000 Program concludes, the County will be required to allocate the remaining 2041 population to each of the sixteen local municipalities based on need and capacity. Theoretically, an over allocation in one municipality could result in a potential shortfall for another municipality that may be experiencing significant growth. The Province is committed to reviewing population and employment trends and will update forecasts within the context of the Growth Plan at regular intervals. As such the 2041 population allocation will not be the last.

Planning Evaluation of Requests

There are certain mandatory criteria that all requests under the 20,000 Population Program must meet which are detailed in the County Official Plan policy 3.5.10. In addition the County OP has established other things that Council has discretion to consider for these requests which are detailed in OP policy 3.5.11.

A number of the criteria of County Official Plan policies 3.5.10 and 3.5.11 can be evaluated for all of the requests as they are located in the same settlement area. The general summary of the criteria which are common to all the requests is located below with a more detailed explanation provided on servicing, phasing and municipal support. A further detailed review of each individual request follows the general summary.

Mandatory Criteria (policy 3.5.10):

All of the requests for population must meet the following criteria detailed in the County OP:

• Can be serviced in accordance with applicable Provincial plans and has demonstrated capability of being developed on municipal services;
• Contributes to the achievement of density and intensification targets as applicable;
• Contributes to the development of a complete community;
• Is subject to phasing policies;
• Contributes to the achievement of jobs to residents ratio;
• Is in accordance with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan as applicable;
• Is supported by appropriate infrastructure;
• Is in accordance with other growth management policies of the County Plan; and
• Does not involve an expansion of the settlement area boundary.

Certain of those criteria warrant additional explanation as follows:

Servicing (3.5.10(a))

Since the approval of OPA No. 38, work has continued on the Environmental Assessment (EA) process for the servicing of the Secondary Plan Area. Phases 1 and 2 have been completed and reviewed by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) with Phases 3 & 4 to be finalized in 2016 and submitted to the MOECC for approval. Once approved, the Township would enter into the design phase with the eventual construction of the water and wastewater systems to follow a few years later. All new development within the settlement area is expected to be on full municipal services with some minor exceptions as detailed in the amendment. It should be noted that the EA process may be subject to additional review by way of a Part II Order Request (‘bump up request’). Given the length of time likely before any residential construction could begin, there appears to be no immediate need for additional population.

Phasing (3.5.10(c))

The phasing policies of the County Official Plan (3.5.14 to 3.5.16) detail that development on designated Greenfield areas should occur contiguous to or abutting the existing built boundary and be based on a sustainable and logical progression of development. The built boundary of Midhurst follows the existing built up area. As illustrated in Schedule 1 attached, the location of lands for some of the population requests such as Frankcom, MDDRI (Doran/Russell Road), and Midves are all adjacent to the built boundary and draft approved subdivisions. Carson Trail Estates and CRDI lands are both adjacent to draft approved subdivisions in Neighbourhood 1. The remaining MDDRI lands and the Walton lands are located the furthest away from the built boundary and draft approved subdivision in Neighbourhood 3.

Policy 3.5.16 of the County Plan requires that the EA process be complete prior to the final registration of plans of subdivision. As noted above in servicing, Phases 3 and 4 of the EA process are expected to be completed in 2016.

Section 9.2 of OPA No. 38 contains policies related to growth management and development phasing. The policies note the requirement for completed infrastructure and community facilities for the logical progression of development generally focused on completing one neighbourhood at a time.

Enhanced Considerations (Policy 3.5.11)

Policy 3.5.11 of the County Official Plan lists 11 additional considerations upon which to evaluate the requests for population under the 20,000 Population Program. Some of these which are common to all requests include:

• The settlement area of Midhurst is one of the primary settlement areas for the Township of Springwater and therefore, the requests are within the settlement hierarchy or preferred growth areas for the local municipality (3.5.11(1));
• No lands within any of the requests are a result of the redevelopment of a Brownfield site (3.5.11(3));
• All proponents noted that they were willing and prepared to pay for their appropriate share of the required infrastructure costs through a landowners group cost sharing agreement to reduce the financial burden on the municipality (3.5.11(6));
• The Township of Springwater does not contain a primary settlement area as defined by the Growth Plan or the County Official Plan (3.5.11(7)); and
• The settlement area of Midhurst is not considered a rural settlement area (3.5.11(10));

Municipal Support (3.5.11(11))

As one of the considerations, policy 3.5.11 includes reference to a resolution from the local municipal Council to confirm support of an adopted Official Plan Amendment to support a request for allocation of population under the Program. This is not a requirement but rather one of the considerations by the County in the administration of the Program.

On November 3, 2008, the Council for the Township of Springwater adopted OPA No. 38 which proposed urban land use designations for the full build out of the Midhurst settlement area (including the 456 hectares which remain under appeal by the Province). County Council supported development in Midhurst by approving OPA No. 38 in 2011 with modifications which, amongst others, established a phasing program.

The current Council for the Township provided a letter to the County Clerk dated January 29, 2016 outlining a resolution regarding the County’s consideration of the population requests. The letter is attached as Schedule 4 to this report. The letter notes that the Township engaged in an extensive public consultation before providing a response pursuant to policy 3.5.11(11).

Specifically, the letter states:

• Current approvals total 6,460 units across the entire Township plus an additional 800 adult community units, all of which are in excess of what is required to accommodate the 2031 population forecasts under Schedule 7 of the Growth Plan;

• Approximately 600-700 units could be development ready within a 5 year time horizon;

• Population to employment ratio is currently well above the 2031 forecasts under Schedule 7 of the Growth Plan and additional population would further exacerbate this ratio;

• Municipal resources are strained to accommodate approved draft plans within Midhurst; and,

• It would not be in the public interest to further accelerate development approvals in Springwater solely based on the allocation program.

Based upon the reasoning within the letter, the Council for the Township of Springwater passed a resolution, carried unanimously, to not support any private request submitted under Sections 3.5.10 and 3.5.11 of the County Official Plan for additional population allocation on a Township-wide basis.

Review of Individual Population Requests

Frankcom Estates

Supporting documentation provided by the applicant includes a Planning Justification Report prepared by Goodreid Planning Group (August 2014). The developable area of the property is approximately 19 hectares in area. A small portion along Gill Road has been designated Environmental Protection II in OPA No. 38. As noted above, Frankcom has appealed OPA No. 38 due to the proposed environmental designation on their lands. The subject lands are located adjacent to the built boundary and draft approved subdivisions to the north and south in Neighbourhood 2. The proposed development will include a mix of housing units, live/work townhomes, commercial uses along Doran Road and access to Doran Road for the draft approved subdivision to the north.

The EP II designation has been reviewed by the Township and NVCA along with the applicant’s consultants. Further review of the environmental features by the biologists in early 2015 refined the delineation of the EP II boundary. This refinement would result in the possible loss of 5 lots plus half of the stormwater block along Street ‘J’. 11 lots would remain unaffected by the primary habitat linkage but are located in a secondary linkage. Additional discussions would need to occur with the Township regarding the concept plan to determine if it would be appropriate to construct and maintain Street ‘J’ to only service a small number of lots. It is recommended that the population request is not modified at this time as the site and mix of housing types could accommodate any minor adjustments to the concept plan. It is understood that the concept plan will be formalized upon submission of applications for plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment to the municipality. Carson Trail Estates Supporting documentation provided by the applicant includes a Planning Justification Report and an addendum prepared by Innovative Planning Solutions (February 2015).

The developable area of the property is 9.46 hectares and is proposed to have a combination of single detached, street townhouses, and a future residential block. The subject lands are located in Neighbourhood 1 and is the only parcel not draft approved on the corner of Anne Street and Carson Road. The proposed development will include a mix of housing units, potential for small scale retail or service commercial uses, and is adjacent to an extensive trail system in the County owned lands to the north.

The initial concept plan has been revised by the applicant to address concerns regarding the future residential block that was shown as a commercial block. A draft plan of subdivision has been submitted to the County and the concept plan will be formalized upon review in conjunction with the municipality.

Midves

Supporting documentation provided by the applicant includes a Planning Justification Report prepared by Innovative Planning Solutions (January 2016).

The proposed developable area of the property is 16.18 hectares (8.29 hectares for residential units) and the remaining 13.07 hectares would be in the environmental protection designations. The subject lands are proposed to be designated Environmental Protection I and Environmental Protection II in OPA No. 38. As noted above, Midves has appealed OPA No. 38 due to the proposed environmental designations on their lands. A draft plan of subdivision has been submitted to the County as well. County planning staff have evaluated the request based on the requirements of policy 3.5.10, the consideration of the criteria in 3.5.11 and all other relevant policies of the County Official Plan. The applicant has addressed the requirements of 3.5.10 and the criteria of 3.5.11 however, the general principle of development remains outstanding in terms of the environmental constraints on the property. The proponent prepared an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to address outstanding concerns regarding the protection of environmental features and hazards on the site. The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) has reviewed the EIS and provided general comments to the County upon request in correspondence dated April 14, 2016. Full technical comments could not be released until the matter of the review fee was addressed by the proponent. The NVCA notes that there appears to be very limited development potential on the property due to the presence of natural heritage constraints including woodlands, drainage and slopes and that further technical justification from both an engineering and natural heritage perspective to support development in this area is required. Therefore, further technical work will need to be completed prior to any allocation to determine the development potential of the site.

Walton – 5 Lots

Supporting documentation provided by the applicant includes a Planning Justification Report and an addendum prepared by Mitchinson Planning and Development Consultants Inc. (December 2015). The Planning Justification Report addresses five lots to be created by severance as well as a plan of subdivision on the subject lands.

The developable area of the property for the 5 lots is 2.5 hectares with 35.6 hectares remaining in environmental protection designations and 5.6 hectares of developable area on the northern portion (detailed below). This area of the property was designated ‘Midhurst Village’ in OPA No. 38. Policy 5.6 in OPA No. 38 allows for the Township to consider small isolated parcels that are constrained from connection to the municipal water supply system for development on private wells and septic systems. The lands are proposed to be developed on private water and wastewater services as there is no municipal infrastructure planned for this area. The lands are located above the top of bank fronting onto Old Second South and are consistent with the existing severances located along Old Second South.

Walton – Subdivision

The remaining developable area of the property is 5.6 hectares and is adjacent to the MDDRI lands to the north. The original concept plan submitted was revised to reduce the number of lots requested from 101 to 63 to reflect the location of the EP I designation. The proposed development is primarily low density development with road access from the MDDRI lands. The remaining EP II designated lands are proposed to be transferred to the Township.

County planning staff have evaluated the request based on the requirements of policy 3.5.10, the consideration of the criteria in 3.5.11 and all other relevant policies of the County Official Plan. The County is satisfied that the criteria of 3.5.10 and the provisions of 3.5.11, as applicable, have been addressed through the Planning Justification Report. It is understood that the concept plan will be formalized upon submission of applications for plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment to the municipality.

MDDRI and CDRI

Supporting documentation provided by the applicant includes a Planning Justification Report and addendum prepared by SGL Planning and Design Inc. (August 2015).

Population requests have been submitted on three separate properties for MDDRI and one property for CRDI. The locations of MDDRI properties are in Neighbourhoods 2 and 3 and the CRDI lands are located in Neighbourhood 1.

MDDRI request for the Bell-Rusdor-Coutts development located at 2572 Russell Road/125 & 155 Doran Road is the second phase of a draft approved subdivision in Neighbourhood 2 with an approximate developable area of 37 hectares within an overall developable area for Phases 1 and 2 of approximately 87 hectares. These lands are located adjacent to the existing built boundary.

CRDI request for the A.R. Hickling development located off of Anne Street is the second phase of a draft approved subdivision in Neighbourhood 1 with a developable area of approximately 5 hectares with an overall developable area for Phases 1 and 2 of 47 hectares.

MDDRI request for the Coutts-Jones development located at Pooles Road and Old Second Road South and the Wright development located at Walt Road and Old Second South are located in Neighbourhood 3 which is beyond the existing built boundary and are not adjacent to any draft approved plans of subdivision. The developable area of Coutts-Jones is approximately 65 hectares and Wright is the entirety of the property at 18.20 hectares. The lands, as with all of those in Neighbourhood 3, are subject to the phasing policies and allocation of population to this last neighbourhood would be based on the long term build out of the settlement area with approved draft plans of subdivision in Neighbourhoods 1 and 2 preceding any development in Neighbourhood 3.

The requests by MDDRI and CRDI are primarily a mix of low and medium density residential units with live-work units proposed for the Coutts-Jones development. The proposed densities for the second phase developments will assist in achieving the overall neighbourhood density however, the densities for the developments in Neighbourhood 3 are slightly lower than the required 35 persons and jobs per hectare.

County planning staff have evaluated the requests based on the requirements of policy 3.5.10, the consideration of the criteria in 3.5.11 and all other relevant policies of the County Official Plan. The County is satisfied that the criteria of 3.5.10 and the provisions of 3.5.11, as applicable, have been addressed through the Planning Justification Report. Draft plans of subdivision for all four properties have been submitted to the County and all concept plans will be formalized upon review in conjunction with the municipality.

Summary

From a planning perspective, each of the requests have met the required criteria set under 3.5.10 and several of the considerations of 3.5.11 of the County Official Plan. However, beyond these technical points, County Council will have to be cognizant of any allocations under this program and its implications to the future allocations to the entire County. Council will need to ensure that there is sufficient population allocation to satisfy the short and medium term needs of the entire County. It is therefore an important consideration not to over allocate population in the short term that would potentially “hold” or “park” the population for a long term need. This could potentially lead to a shortfall in another municipality in the long term.

Upon hearing the evidence at the hearing and reviewing the information contained within this report, County Council will, in accordance with By-law No. 6544, need to make a decision. Council should be reminded that County Council has discretion to choose whether or not allocate any population to these lands, as both the Growth Plan policy 6.3.2.2 and County Official Plan policy 3.5.10 state that the County “may” approve these requests for population. Any decision will be the subject of the motion hearing in July 2016.

For Council’s benefit, three possible Options are provided for consideration as follows:

Option 1 – Approve

All County Council may approve a maximum population of 6,120 persons to be allocated to all of the lands requested in Schedule 2 to this report located in the Township of Springwater, Settlement Area of Midhurst, under Growth Plan policy 6.3.2.2 and County of Simcoe Official Plan (2012) policies 3.5.10 and 3.5.11.

All of the requests noted in Schedule 2 have provided justification as per policies 3.5.10 and 3.5.11 of the County Official Plan to support an allocation of population to the subject lands. The requests are all located within a settlement area and have proposed designations that allow for development through OPA No. 38, with the exception of Midves. Planning policies focus the majority of growth and development to settlement areas and it is anticipated that development will occur in Midhurst over the long term. The timing of this development is the fundamental question which is alluded to in the Province’s partial withdrawal letter.

If this request is approved, there would be a remaining balance of 11,221 in population available in the program across the County. This would mean that the 81,000 population growth of the County to deploy to the local municipalities between the years 2031 to 2041 is reduced to 69,779.

Option 2 – Approve None

County Council may deny the requests for population to be allocated to all of the lands requested in Schedule 2 to this report in the Township of Springwater, Settlement Area of Midhurst, as considered under Growth Plan policy 6.3.2.2 and County of Simcoe Official Plan (2012) policies 3.5.10 and 3.5.11.

As noted in the municipal support section above, the Township Council does not support any private request for additional population on a Township-wide basis. The allocation of population to a municipality and settlement area with an existing excess of draft approved units may essentially ‘park’ population for an extended time period. Due to pre-existing approvals, phasing and length of time to install municipal water and wastewater services, development on the lands which are the subject of the requests for population will not occur in the short term. This borrowing of allocation from the County’s 2041 population may have an impact on future allocations for other municipalities who may have a more immediate need for more population.

If the requests are denied, the remaining balance in the Program of 17,348 in population would not change from the current balance.

Option 3 – Approve Selected Requests

County Council may approve selected requests for population to be allocated to certain lands identified below as a) through f) to this report in the Township of Springwater, Settlement Area of Midhurst, as considered under Growth Plan policy 6.3.2.2 and County of Simcoe Official Plan (2012) policies 3.5.10 and 3.5.11.

The requests have been listed in order of impact, ability to complete draft approved neighbourhoods, adjacency to built boundary, and environmental constraints.

a) Walton Lands – 5 Lots

Reason to consider approval: The population request for 15 persons (5 single detached units) is relatively inconsequential to the overall population program and has minimal impact on municipal services. The proposal is located on table lands that are isolated from the rest of the community and are proposed to be designated for residential purposes in OPA No. 38. The lands will be developed on private water and wastewater as municipal services are not proposed for this area. The lots have frontage on an existing year-round maintained municipal road. If the request for a) is approved, there would be a remaining balance of 17,335 in population available in the program across the County.

b) Carson Trail Estates

Reason to consider approval: The population request for 504 persons would permit the completion of the intersection of Anne Street and Doran Road as part of Neighbourhood 1. The development proposes to meet the density, housing mix and active transportation components desired for Neighbourhood 1 with no environmental constraints. If the request for b) is approved, there would be a remaining balance of 16,844 in population available in the program across the County.

c) Frankcom Estates

Reason to consider approval: The population request for 828 person would permit the completion of the portion of Neighbourhood 2 located at Gill Road and Doran Road. The development proposes to meet the density, housing mix, commercial needs and transportation connectivity desired for Neighbourhood 2. The outstanding environmental constraints are minor and can be further refined at the subdivision stage with the NVCA and Township. If the request for c) is approved, there would be a remaining balance of 16,520 in population available in the program across the County.

d) Midhurst Development Doran Road Inc. / Carson Road Development Inc.

Reason to consider approval: The population request for 4,309 persons would permit the completion of the portions of Neighbourhoods 1 and 2 for the MDDRI and CRDI developments located Doran Road/Russell Road and Anne Street. These developments are second phases of draft approved subdivisions owned by the same developer and would assist in developing these area comprehensively.

The other two MDDRI developments located at Walt Road/Old Second South and Old Second South are, as all of those in Neighbourhood 3, located beyond the existing built boundary and are not adjacent to any draft approved plans of subdivision. Allocation of population to this last phase of development in Midhurst would be based on the long term build out of the settlement area with approved draft plans of subdivision in Neighbourhoods 1 and 2 preceding before any development in Neighbourhood 3.

If the request for d) is approved, there would be a remaining balance of 13,039 in population available in the program across the County.

e) Walton Lands – Subdivision

Reason to consider approval: The population request for 184 persons for the subdivision portion of the subject lands are dependent on the development of the MDDRI lands to the north in Neighbourhood 3. The lands, as all of those in Neighbourhood 3, are located beyond the existing built boundary and are not adjacent to any draft approved plans of subdivision. Based upon the phasing policies, allocation of population to this last phase would be based on the long term build out of the settlement area with approved draft plans of subdivision in Neighbourhoods 1 and 2 preceding before any development in Neighbourhood 3.

If the request for e) is approved, there would be a remaining balance of 17,164 in population available in the program across the County.

f) Midves

Reason to consider for approval: The population request for 504 persons for the subject lands would require additional environmental work to demonstrate that it is appropriate to develop the lands for residential purposes. For this reason, County planning staff see the request as premature at this time. If the request for f) is approved, there would be a remaining balance of 16,844 in population available in the program across the County.

Financial and Resource Implications:

Financial implications may include legal fees to address the outstanding appeals pending before the Ontario Municipal Board as well as potential legal challenges on the jurisdiction matter.

Relationship to Corporate Strategies:

No relationship to corporate strategies.

Reference Documents: Item CCW 16-057 (April 12, 2016) – Status Update on 20,000 Population Program Item CS 11-153 (October 12, 2011) – Decision on Springwater Official Plan Amendment No. 38 Planning Justification Reports for each of the Population Requests can be located on the County website by following the link http://www.simcoe.ca/Planning/Pages/20000-population-program.aspx

Attachments: note: go to County report, item 14 on May 10 agenda, to get attachments)

The following schedules are attached and form part of this report.

Schedule 1 – Location Map

Schedule 2 – Table 1: Summary of Population Requests for Midhurst

Schedule 3 – Partial Withdrawal of Appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 38 from the Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs dated November 28, 2012

Schedule 4 – Township of Springwater Letter – 20,000 Population Program dated January 29, 2016

Schedule 5 – Notice of Hearing on 20,000 Population Request

Recent Posts

Simcoe County staff report on Midhurst requests for population allocations

Leave a Reply Cancel reply