Thursday, January 19, 2012

Growth in Simcoe County - Good Effort but not Great

Province eases restrictions on municipalities


By Kate Harries AWARE Simcoe January 19 2012

The Ontario government has bowed to local municipal pressure by easing restrictions on how much growth can take place in Simcoe County.

Flexibility is being touted as the hallmarked of Amendment 1, new provincial legislation governing growth in Simcoe County that goes into effect today.

The question is whether municipalities will hold to the population numbers established by the province now that tough enforcement measures proposed by the province over a year ago have been removed.

AWARE Simcoe is holding a meeting on Saturday at the Angus Recreation Centre, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., to discuss the issue of sprawl and what effect the new provincial policies will have.

Today at the Nottawasaga Inn, several Simcoe County mayors expressed optimism that the changes put them back in control of development in their municipalities.

“Thank you for listening,” Innisfil Mayor Barb Baguley told provincial officials at the morning technical briefing, attended by over 200 people. Some 350 attended a $60 lunch hosted by the Alliston Chamber of Commerce.

Cheryl Shindruk, vice-presdent of Geranium Corporation and chair of the Simcoe County chapter of the Building Industry Land Development Association, also expressed appreciation.

Changes that are welcomed by municipal politicians and developers include:

-Removal of “interim settlement boundaries,” a measure by which the province aimed to draw back boundaries in cases where councils had approved excessive development.

-Addition of Alcona in Innisfil as a primary settlement area (a term that replaces ‘urban growth node,’ the terminology used to date.) This means that major growth is to be directed to seven areas - Barrie, Orillia, Collingwood, Midland-Penetanguishene, Alliston, Bradford and, now, Alcona.

-Greater flexibility for approval of development in settlement areas.

-Municipalities may request that the minister review decisions relating to uses and boundaries of four strategic employment area – in Bradford West Gwillimbury, Innisfil Heights, the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport in Oro-Medonte and the Rama Road district.

The province also announced a provision that will sunset in five years for an extra 20,000 of population to be allocated by the County of Simcoe.

The new polices in Amendment 1 do not apply to the rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe area which, along with Simcoe County, fall under Places to Grow planning legislation

“This is a strong statement that Simcoe is significantly different to other parts of the Greater Golden Horseshoe,” Infrastructure Minister Bob Chiarelli told a crowd of politicians, lawyers, developers, planners and citizens at his announcement this morning.

“The Simcoe area is unique in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, with important sensitive environmental resources, complex growth challenges, and intense development pressures,” Chiarellii said. Two key environmental assets identified in ministry documents are Lake Simcoe and high quality agricultural lands. (Some expressed disappointment that the Nottawasaga watershed was not mentioned.)

Unchanged are the population and growth forecasts established by the province in 2006, when Places to Grow came into effect – a total population, including Barrie and Orillia, of 667,000 by 2031, and a total employment figure of 254,000.

“What has changed,” said provincial development facilitator Paula Dill, “is the increased flexibility for Simcoe County municipalities to approve development if they have historically designated lands that would accommodate growth... The aim is to direct growth to areas that offer municipal water and wastewater treatment."

Dill explained that a new policy allows development in settlement areas in excess of what is needed to accommodate the forecasts, provided that the development is on lands designated for urban use as of today.

“This added flexibility will address much of what we heard through the consultation. It will mean that even if a municipality has lands that were designated for urban development 20 or 30 years ago where growth has not proceeded, the municipality may continue to approve new development, provided that those lands are in a settlement area, and are designated.

“Furthermore, the county may approve, adopt an official plan or amendment that redesignates rural lands as urban land within a settlement area. The total amount of urban land approved under this policy cannot exceed the amount of land that could accommodate 20,000 people across the county. This policy will sunset in five years.

“In all cases, approvals must demonstrate that they meet the planning tests such as contributing to achievement of density and intensification targets and any applicable requirements that relate to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.”

Dill said municipalities will be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency and conservation in energy, water and wastewater management through building and community design.

And, she added, “the County of Simcoe and the lower-tier municipalities shall establish and implement policies to ensure the orderly and timely progression of development on lands for urban uses.”

Bill French of Springwater asked Dill what is to happen in the case of a small municipality that has a forecast increase of 6,000 people people between now and 2031, and yet on the books the township is adding 30,000. "How are those two going to meet?"

Dill replied: “The amendment says if you are in a settlement area and designated urban, the municipality can approve... What this is doing is recognizing that there are a lot of old, old approvals that are taking up a lot of room. We are trying to direct growth to where it should be.”

French didn’t name Midhurst but continued with details of the Midhurst situation: "Is it possible that, given that the population growth is limited to another 6,000 people between now and 2031, that in fact it may meet some of the criteria, that in fact 30,000 people would be allowed in that area? It’s not an urban node.”

Dill: “It depends on the amount of population that is allocated to that municipality.If the allocation is 6,000 and it is designated to be urban development in a settlement area, the municipality may indeed approve in excess of Schedule 7 if it is designated urban. If it’s not urban then it doesn’t qualify.”

French: “Well right now it’s a designated settlement area, but it’s agricultural.”

Dill: “It’s got to be within settlement and it’s got to be designated urban.”

French: “If it’s not zoned for residential or whatever, then it’s not permitted.”

Dell: “It may not be.”

French then asked, referring to the 667,000 population forecast for the county in 2031: “The 667 number - is that a solid number?

Yes,” Dill said. “At this point in time.”

Asked whether Dill’s report would be released, deputy minister Drew Fagan said, “it’s not actually a formal report.” Dill said the advice she provided to the minister is reflected in the amendment.