My View - Mayor French

You will find some details in the Springwater Council Corner article in Springwater News www.springwaternews.ca outlining some activities at an OGRA/ROMA conference that I, the Deputy Mayor and some senior management attended recently. The conference did make me think about some things beyond my immediate Springwater boundary after listening to some of the Provincial Ministers at the various sessions. With that in mind here are some thoughts and questions.

Ontario is faced with challenging financial times and its debt servicing absorbs a lot of funds that could be better spent on actual services. Quite often I hear at Springwater Council and also at Simcoe County Council that we should have more funding to do this or that from higher levels of government. We at the municipal level have had numerous things downloaded from the province over the last 20 years. Unfortunately for all of us there is only one tax payer and I believe the Province has run out of money, so we can’t depend on them in the future. We as local politicians must focus on controlling costs and finding our own sources of revenue. The best thing the Province could do is put the actual governance of our local municipalities back in our hands instead of having Ministries like Municipal Affairs and Housing and Infrastructure and agencies such as the OMB decide what is good for us.

I know no one wants to ever question the subject of health care, as we all need it, but it is a Provincial responsibility. Since that is the case why has the County provided Capital Funding for local hospitals to the tune of $60,000,000 over the last 20 years. To me that is an extra tax being applied to the hard working people of our area. I also question why we as a township pay money into physician recruitment for local hospitals but see no direct doctors setting up shop in our local communities.

What about our education system? Does it make sense that by using some Ministry of Education formulas and area review committees, that schools like Penetanguishene High School or Barrie Central are closed and the protests of the area residents fall on deaf ears. Here is another question. Does Barrie really need another university when it has a well established College of 50 years that has created a very effective University Partnership Centre offering a variety of degree courses and by their own admission could handle another 5,000 student intake? I ask that question as we are already funding a new university in Orillia. Is that not enough?

It would be nice to have hospitals and universities on every corner like fast food outlets, but we can’t afford it. As governments, we need to focus on what people actually need rather than what would be nice to have. Until then, we will continue on a downward spiral.

Over the next four years I plan to ask these questions of the higher levels of government. You need to ask the same questions of your local MP and MPP.

Now back to our township. As a Springwater council we are only as good as you make us. Keep informed and email or phone us regularly. I appreciate the calls and visits I have had on a variety of issues that range from flooding in back yards, fallen trees, extension of Barrie Transit into Midhurst, to the lack of high speed internet in some of our communities. In each case I follow through and engage others when necessary. In some cases, the answer I or someone on the Springwater management team provides is not what the person would like to hear, but we will be straight with you; that I promise.

I encourage you as individuals and local advocacy groups to engage our elected officials at all levels of government and start pushing back. We live in a wonderful community, township, county, province and country, but if we don’t start focusing on reality, we will leave a legacy that is not very promising for our future generations. We all need to speak up!

On a positive note we will be hosting our first Town Hall meeting in Elmvale to listen to your opinions on what is important to you and your community. The date will be set shortly.

Contact me at 705-728-4784 ext. 2040 or my cell at 705-718-7031 or email at bill.french@springwater.ca and follow me on twitter @MayorFrench

2014 Election

There will not be any entries to this blog until after October 27th. To keep abreast of issues in Springwater go to www.frenchformayor.ca or email frenchformayor2014@gmail.com

Response to Deputy Mayor McLean Rant in Springwater News

I am pleased that Deputy Mayor McLean submitted his “Letter to Editor” in the July 31st edition of Springwater News. You need to have that handy to make sense of this article. A few people phoned me and asked if his letter angered me because of his strong criticism of my opinions. My answer was “no”. I said it is important that people see how he thinks, which is a good thing. I also believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and point of view.

For those trying to figure out who should lead our council for the next 4 years, you now have a view from the second in command on council, the Deputy Mayor. You have also seen articles from the Mayor in recent months. For balance, and since his name is mentioned in the McLean letter, check out Les Stewart who has filed his papers to run as your next deputy mayor. As McLean states, be informed with facts and not swayed by the rhetoric.

McLean’s initial information on the MSP approval is correct. It was done with a special rule by the province. He ignores the fact that the Township and County did not object to the mega development in Midhurst even though the plan offended all good planning principles. Some say and I am sure actually believe that it was out of the township’s control. If the Council had objected to the plan, there would have been no special rule nor mega development, as the Midhurst Secondary Plan is contrary to all the higher level provincial policies including the County’s OP. The only scaremongering I see is from McLean when he mentions the $100,000,000 potential lawsuit, if the Midhurst Mega City was stopped. First of all, that number of $100,000,000 from the township lawyer was based on the value of the infrastructure investment to serve the potential future 30,000 additional residents. Unlike the Gas Plant debacle that McLean refers to, which was well underway when terminated, the zoning, which is the subject of an OMB appeal, has still not been approved for the Midhurst developments and no construction has been done. No money has been put in the ground as I write this letter, but there are efforts behind the scenes trying to fast track it before the Oct 27^th election.  Is there a chance of a lawsuit if the MSP was cancelled? I would say yes as lawsuits seem to be the norm of today. However, the developers speculated on land they bought after the provincial policies were in place. The developers took a calculated risk, lobbied elected officials at all levels and are hoping for a win. This is quite legal and I would expect nothing less from a corporation attempting to reward its shareholders. I have no complaints about the integrity of the developers or landowners. They are trying to maximize their investments. If the MSP were revisited and reduced in size is the cost of speculating and the return may not be as anticipated. This is not a criticism of the business model, it is just the way it works. Have you never speculated on something? Did you win every time? No one is against development that is reasonable, sustainable and compliments the areas where it is built which has been the history of developments in Springwater until the high density plans for Centre Vespra , the Midhurst Mega City and Hillsdale came along.

McLean’s argument that the approvals before the OMB at this time have 150 conditions that must be met is correct. I commend the township for creating a good detailed list and many good conditions are included. I fear the developers will fight each condition with the end result being that some important conditions will be compromised. Now if the Township had insisted that all conditions were met prior to a final OMB zoning approval that would be a different story. That was done in Anten Mills some years ago and as a result the development has not proceeded as there are still conditions that must be met and approved.

McLean’s criticism of my premise that the rest of the township will suffer because of the concentration of population in the south, is an example of old style thinking. In 1994 there were no heavy concentrations of developments like we would see with the Midhurst Mega Development, so his argument is a little dated (we are now 20 years later) and illustrates his inability to see the big picture with a long term view, which to me is worrisome.

His explanation of how our water and sewer charges work is also correct. He ignores the fact that since they are pooled, the unknown costs of operating a City sized water and sewage facility that has miles of lines are a real threat to those rates. He also failed to mention that 2 years into a plan to create the necessary reserves for the replacement of our existing infrastructure, the reserve was 30% underfunded according to the CFO of the day.  That is why those on full services have an annual 3 to 3.5% compounded increase in these rates for years to come. Do you think it will get better when we add a $100,000,000 facility that we have no idea what it will cost to operate?

His reference to the BMA Management Consultant Report is a little overstated. There were few municipalities in the comparison study that were the size and character of Springwater. Besides, less than a third of the Ontario Municipalities participated. Remember the township pays for the report.

I do agree with McLean’s concluding paragraph in his letter. The next council has many challenges because of the leadership of the last 8 years. I agree that the upcoming election is not just about the Midhurst Secondary Plan. It is about transparency and the leadership void that exists. Do your homework. If this council and especially the Mayor and Deputy Mayor did as much research as I do they probably could comment and make more effective arguments. They definitely have more resources for information than I do. My opinions are based on fact not conjecture.

Let’s elect a council that has a vision for the entire township. Let’s finally choose a council that actually listen’s to the electorate! There will be many on the upcoming slate that will actually do that. I succeeded in business because I listened to everyone and as result had the good fortune to manage some of the best companies in their respective sectors. Yes I have strong opinions and have been accused of being “too opinionated” but those opinions have been formed by engaging many stakeholders not just a few that support my position.

Help me lead that vision!

It’s your choice!

frenchformayor2014@gmail.com

705-718-7031

My View – Why show up for an OMB gun fight unarmed?

I attended the OMB prehearing for the rezoning of the lands in the Midhurst Mega development on July 3^rd. As expected it was a lovefest with the developers, lawyers and planners singing the praises of the new proposed City of Midhurst and its potential 30,000 residents. I estimate the costs for the high paid and extremely well prepared professional talent was about $30,000 for the day, paid for by the landowners and development community. No one was present to protect the interests of Springwater residents except for the Midhurst Ratepayers Association who took the position of a Participant at the hearing. Our high paid Springwater staff were window dressing and did not comment on behalf of you and me. As mentioned in my last article, because of pressure from the NVCA Board, which is comprised of our local elected officials that favour development, the NVCA have now changed their original position that the hearings were premature and opened the door for approval.

Your elected officials will argue that before building will proceed there are a number of conditions that must be met such as Environmental Assessment Studies, Financial Agreements and so forth. On the surface that sounds like reasonable logic. Unfortunately if and when the OMB approves the Mega development zoning, I will bet each of those conditions will be diluted to the extent that the Springwater will be exposed to untold legacy costs. If we had someone leading the Township that understood deal making, you would never do a deal with a party that outguns you until all conditions are approved. There is more than a subtle difference between approving a deal with conditions as opposed to doing a deal where nothing can proceed until all conditions are met. You will quickly see approvals for preliminary infrastructure work and model homes. Once the ball gets rolling, the project becomes more difficult to stop. The good news it can still be stopped if there is a political will.

I almost fell off my chair when I was speaking to one of our councillors about the negative effect that this Midhurst Mega Development will have on all of Springwater. Her reasoning was, “Why should Barrie get all those tax dollars instead of Springwater?” Unfortunately this is the flawed understanding of development charges and new tax dollars. In every fast growing community such as Barrie, Mississauga and Vaughan the DC’s and new tax dollars cover about 75% of actual costs leaving the municipality with increased debt and higher taxes. That is why Barrie has DC’s of about $45,000 per unit and another $4,500 surcharge for development in the annexed lands. Under new leadership, namely Jeff Lehman, they are trying to correct the sins of poor planning over the last 30 years. Currently 10% of your Springwater tax dollars go to debt servicing rather than actual services. I see that quickly growing to the maximum permitted which is 25% if the MSP proceeds. York Region has amassed a 2 billion dollar debt because of this type of reasoning by their elected officials requiring a huge amount of the high taxes going to debt servicing.

The Liberal government set aside all good planning policies by granting the Midhurst Special Rule which allowed the MSP to proceed and only two of our elected officials objected. It will take the same government to reverse the MSP with a new Special Rule which they have full authority to invoke. The MSP contravenes a number of policies in both the Provincial Policy Statement and the Places to Grow legislation. It only approved the Midhurst Special Rule because this council requested the approval and did not provide any objection to the plan. The discussions and maneuvering was all orchestrated behind closed doors.

I would like to correct any misunderstanding about my position on growth in response to a call from one resident that stated I was against progress due to my position on the Midhurst Mega City proposal. As I have said since the 2010 election I fully support needed growth in all of our communities especially jobs. I believe there should be a focus on completion of growth in Elmvale which can support another 400 homes without any significant additional cost for infrastructure. As a matter of fact you would see reduced water and sewage bills as the services would be better utilized. I do not support paving over prime farmland with City sized mega projects such as Midhurst. For the last 25 years we have seen reasonably smart growth in the township before the onslaught of the mega developers. Small developments in Elmvale, Midhurst, Snow Valley, Apto, Minesing, Anten Mills, Fergusonvale, Phelpston and Hillsdale have complimented the community and fit in nicely without destroying the character of the communities. A lot of the labour and services were also provided by local companies. What is proposed for Midhurst is a whole new game. The developer admits they plan to create a model community as they have done elsewhere (whatever that means!)

Oct 27^th is quickly approaching. It is your last chance to elect people that will stand up for the majority rather than the well-financed few.

It’s you choice!

frenchformayor2014@gmail.com

705-718-7031

Springwater Council Advances Final Steps of Midhurst Secondary Plan

On June 25^th of last week there were some special meetings held by the Planning Committee of Springwater Township. As many people know the committee is comprised of the elected officials.

The first meeting at 5:30 was a closed session to discuss the issues and conditions for the zoning of the first 5,000 homes of phase 1 of the Midhurst Secondary Plan.

The second session was an open house scheduled for 6:30 where the revised subdivision plans for the Midhurst Mega Development were presented. There were some minor revisions that had been requested by the township in April and the plans were revised accordingly. There was a minor reduction in the number of homes of about 5%.

A Special Planning Committee Meeting was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. but it was delayed by about 35 minutes as it took longer in the closed session than expected. I guess some councillors were not clicking their heels in tune with the mayor’s wishes. This public meeting, which has put a further spike in the coffin of Springwater’s enviable rural lifestyle, lasted about 20 minutes. There was no question period as is the normal case at Planning Meetings and we all know why. Four members of this council want this project to proceed and have ignored all pleas and reasoning by many in our community. The motion to accept the report was unanimous. Put in a nutshell the report says that the developers have satisfied the concerns of the Township and that they will support the OMB approving the zoning of the lands as applied for. Few people seemed to realize that this was more than receiving a report. It was a final stamp of approval by this council for the Mega Development to proceed. That in my estimation is a dark day for Springwater residents and will be one of the dates we refer back to in years to come where this council approved the destruction of the rural nature of Springwater.

Now for some reality checks. At the present time we have 5 ward councillors that, if evenly spread, represent about 3000 voters each. If Midhurst proceeds, as this council has approved, that will mean there will be about 4 more councillors representing the new population in Midhurst at the completion of the first phase. It could mean another 4 if phase 2 proceeds. Even if we keep the same number of councillors that would mean most councillors will be representing the Midhurst population. How successful will be the pleas be for improvements in the likes of Hillsdale, Elmvale, Minesing, Phelpston and Anten Mills. If you think you are being ignored now, just wait until this Midhurst development proceeds.

One of the last hopes for delaying or revisiting the entire negative environmental impacts of the Midhurst Mega Development I think got scuttled by the Board at a meeting on Friday at the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. There was another long closed session meeting with some 26 items. A number of councillors, prior to approving the agenda to go into “closed session”, objected and said only 2 to 4 items would meet the requirements of the Municipal Act. But again the Board of the NVCA are the elected officials from the municipalities and many support these large plans. The NVCA had pleaded at the OMB prehearing for the Midhurst zoning that the hearings were premature and should be delayed. The outcome I expect after Friday’s NVCA will be a withdrawal of the objection and “voila”, the OMB will approve the zoning request.

Our elected officials are pawns in the big business of land development and speculators. As we have seen at the various OMB hearings on development issues the landowners and developers spend millions to get approval of “their” interpretation of the laws and policies. It is pretty easy when the local County and municipalities within it lack the experience or wherewithal to challenge these issues.

If you look around the County of Simcoe we see sprawl being permitted, which is contrary to the policies that govern it. And that is simply sad. What is sadder is that few of the elected officials have the courage to take a stand. It is like the school yard bully. Until someone stands up to him, everyone is in fear. But when one person says “enough is enough” the problem quickly resolves itself. We succeeded by challenging the bully responsible for the Site 41 mega-dump, so now we must do the same for Midhurst, Everett and Baxter.

We all need to decide what we want in our local municipalities and elect people that will stand up for the majority rather than the well-financed few.

It’s you choice!

frenchformayor2014@gmail.com

705-718-7031

It’s time to change the channel. Can you say Ecotourism?

By Gary Cerantola

Georgian Bay and area with its stunning natural scenery and its expanding network of hiking and biking trails and waterways is ripe for shaping an ecotourism economy that lends itself to sustainability and attracting investment while providing green jobs for Ontarians for generations to come. It’s time to consider both the private and social benefits of managing our natural heritage while creating a sustainable local economy based on ecotourism.

One of our biggest treasures is the Minesing Wetlands.

The Minesing Wetlands is internationally recognized as an area of unique biological diversity and ecological importance. This natural treasure is recognized under the Ramsar Convention which is an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilization of wetlands, recognizing the fundamental ecological functions of wetlands and their economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational value. It is also recognized as a Provincially Significant Wetland and a Provincially Significant Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest in our province of Ontario.

It is currently threatened by overdevelopment in the form of urban sprawl, and flooding exacerbated by global warming effects. It has suffered degradation from logging, land recovery, farming and drainage practices that date back to the 1800s and is a product of the management systems that have been put in place to protect it over the last few decades. The Minesing Wetlands boasts the largest and most diverse wetland complexes in Southern Ontario and is known in some circles as the Costa Rica of Ontario for its bio-diversity. It provides habitat for several significant species, including at-risk turtles and eastern prairie white-fringed orchid. The Minesing Wetlands has long been known to contain one of the oldest and largest heronry areas in southern Ontario and provides expansive breeding opportunities for marsh birds. Its extensive marshes provide significant stopover habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. The Minesing Wetlands also supports one of the largest deeryards within the Nottawasaga River watershed.

Located in the heart of the Nottawasaga River watershed in Simcoe County, the wetlands include swamp marsh and fen communities. The Nottawasaga River is part of the Great Lakes Basin, and is a tributary of Lake Huron. Its main branch is 120 kilometers long and empties in to Georgian Bay at Wasaga Beach. The Nottawasaga River system is one of the largest producers of Rainbow Trout and Chinook Salmon in the Georgian Bay/Lake Huron basin. The river also supports critical spawning and nursery habitat for Lake Sturgeon.

Paving Paradise and Putting up a Parking Lot

Since 1833 European settlers began settling, farming and logging the Minesing Wetlands. We have been treating our natural heritage as if it was a business in need of liquidation. Currently there is a Midhurst secondary plan in the Township of Springwater in play that has earmarked a development expansion that will potentially accommodate 30,000 residents on the edge of the Nottawasaga River watershed. This development will result in storm drains and sewer treatment effluent that will make their way to the wetlands and challenge the carrying capacity of this eco-system.

This is a perfect example of traditional economic drivers at play. Without awareness, education and citizen engagement we will never succeed in creating a sustainable future for our grandchildren and generations to come.

Let`s Change the Channel

We have an opportunity to develop new business models to create a sustainable portion of our economy through ecotourism. If we can spawn ecotourism economic drivers in Ontario we have a chance to diminish traditional incentives to build developments on sensitive lands.

Given the rich natural capital bounded by the Minesing Wetlands we will be able to harness the bounties of ecotourism and motivate efforts to preserve it, while sharing these resources with visitors around the world. This new industry would create an emphasis on enriching personal experiences and environmental awareness through interpretation while creating a greater understanding and appreciation for nature, local society, and culture.

The benefits of ecotourism will drive the desire to manage the ecological resilience of the Minesing Wetlands in terms of protecting what we have with better monitoring, stewardship and management practices and restoring conditions such that we will maintain these natural treasures for future generations.

Ontario's young workers have largely been affected by a national economic shift away from the manufacturing sector towards resource extraction and Ontario government austerity measures over the last few years. With Ontario youth unemployment rates trending higher than the national average would it not make sense to create employment incentives associated with ecotourism to develop a burgeoning ecotourism industry dealing with employment and conservation issues in a combined strategic effort? Ontario’s younger working cohort segment have the right value set and the energy and enthusiasm to make the most impact in terms of creating a best-in-class ecotourism business model for Ontario.

Aligning the Forces in Our Society to Preserve Our Heritage

We can align drivers to consider both private and social benefits and manage our natural heritage. As a society we are finally recognizing that, the challenge of sustainability rests almost entirely in getting the economy right. We acknowledge that climate change and ecological degradation threaten our future prosperity. Ecotourism as part of the green economy can be driven equally by opportunity and conservation, as green economy options open up new possibilities for jobs and growth. As a recent report from the U.N. put it, “the greening of economies is not generally a drag on growth but rather a new engine of growth…a net generator of decent jobs…”

So the next time you recognize a part of our beautiful world undergoing change that has the potential to short change our future generations, be a good ancestor and voice your concerns. Chances are an ecotourism opportunity can be explored that will solve this problem and simultaneously grow green jobs in Ontario and create a positive impact on our economy.

Pictures courtesy of Jim Samis, Free Spirit Tours, http://www.freespirit-tours.com/

Gary Cerantola, Hon BSc. Chemistry, P.Eng., MBA is a resident of Wasaga Beach and currently a candidate in the Wasaga Beach Municipal 2014 election for Deputy Mayor. www.garycerantola.com

Midhurst, the Mayor and Links to the Facts

Thank you Madame Mayor, for your insight into the Township’s plans for growth in Midhurst. (Springwater News, May 8). I believe that you genuinely “would like to get it right’, but the facts speak for themselves and lead the inquisitive reader to the inevitable conclusion that your Council is simply not getting it right. You say, “The Township of Springwater must follow processes governed by provincial laws”. True enough. Here’s what the laws say:

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was revised in 1996, 2005 and April 30, 2014. All versions contain clauses protecting agricultural land. e.g. in the current version, Section 1.1.5.8 refers to Rural Lands in Municipalities and states:-
“Agricultural uses, agricultural-related uses, on farm diversified uses and normal farm practices should be protected in accordance with provincial standards”. (The proposed Midhurst development is entirely on Class 1 and 2 farmland). Section 2.3 is devoted to the protection of agriculture. Here’s the Link to the PPS:
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10463

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Section 1.1 (page 7, para 10, 11 and 15) states:-
“Despite its many assets, Ontario and the GGH face a number of challenges in sustaining and growing its economy;
Increasing numbers of automobiles are traveling over longer distances resulting in clogged transportation corridors. Traffic congestion and delays in the movement of goods costs Ontario upwards of $5 billion in lost GDP each year.

Urban sprawl continues to the degradation of our natural environment, air quality and water resources as well as the consumption of agricultural lands and other natural resources so critical to the future economy”.

(Does the Mayor of Springwater seriously believe that enough local industry will be found to employ a new city the size of Orillia and that OPA 38 will not exacerbate long distance commuting and traffic congestion?)

Growth Plan 2.1 (page 13, para 3 and 4) states:-
“There is a large supply of land already designated for future urban development in the GGH. In most communities there is enough land to accommodate projected growth based on the growth forecasts and intensification target and density targets of this Plan. It is important to optimize the use of the existing land supply to avoid over-designating new land for future urban development.

Strong, healthy and prosperous rural communities are vital to the economic success of the GGH and contribute to our quality of life. i.e. building so many houses so far north of the GTA was not required by the province. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the link to the Growth Plan: https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=359&Itemid=12#

IGAP - The County of Simcoe was a special case. Ever since the Greenbelt Act in 2005 barred many developments closer to Toronto, Simcoe had become an easy target for developers. I say easy, because councillors and planners in rural Ontario typically do not have the experience to cope with competitive developer sales arguments. Indeed some councillors are keen to embrace growth in their communities. The following is a quote from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing web site: “Since late 2004, the Province of Ontario, the County of Simcoe and the cities of Barrie and Orillia had been working together on an Intergovernmental Action Plan (IGAP) to address concerns about growth and environmental issues in the Simcoe County area”. Here’s the link: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1784.aspx

The IGAP studies made it clear that in Simcoe County there was an oversupply of land approved for development. The report said that in 2006 (the year that the IGAP report was published) urban lands already approved, would satisfy 100% of the Province’s population needs through 2031. But speculators continued to buy land and to lobby for approvals. Then in 2010, the Province introduced its Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan. This document, introduced the idea of Interim Settlement Area Boundaries (ISABs) no larger than needed to satisfy Provincial population forecasts to 2031. As might be imagined this idea went down like a lead balloon with developers. No one wants to have their options limited. They argued successfully that settlement areas already established should not be reduced in size. So when Amendment 1 was finally released, the ISABs were gone and Midhurst was stuck with an over inflated “Settlement Area”.

Settlement Area - he Mayor refers to the Township of Springwater Official Plan of 1998. The plan was very thorough with 30 Sections, 14 Schedules (maps) and over 240 pages. Section 8.6 covers the settlement area policies for Midhurst. 8.6.1.11 says “agricultural lands and operations should be protected from the intrusion of non-agricultural and community related uses”. 8.6.2.1 says “Schedule A-8 generally identifies the study area within which the contemplated (Midhurst) Secondary Plans (two were envisaged) will set out future growth opportunities”. Other clauses deal with the need for financial feasibility studies, a review of nearby agricultural operations, etc. Provincial, County and Municipal staff and two councillors of the day have attested that the Midhurst Study Area was understood to be just that; an area to study where future development would occur. In those days there was no requirement for “intensification”.

Sections 17 and 18 of the Official Plan covered Agricultural and Rural Policies respectively.
e.g. 17.1.1 ... “agriculture is the most important segment of the Township’s economy. The agricultural industry must be protected in recognition of the increasing pressure from urban type development”.

The Midhurst Secondary Plan of 2008 was much smaller than the Official Plan. It contained 46 pages and two maps, plus the Appendix which provided typical urban design guidelines. The amended Plan assumed the entire study area shown in Schedule A-8, to be a “settlement area”, including the class 1 farmland in the north east, the class 2 farmland in the south west and the entire Springwater Provincial Park.
The Growth Plan defines Lands for Urban Uses as “Lands that are not designated for agricultural or rural uses within a settlement area identified in the approved official plan for the municipality”. But the Official Plan shows that the entire development is on agricultural land.

Required or not required?

Let’s not get confused as to what the province does or does not require. Secondary plans are a normal requirement for areas like Midhurst which are experiencing growth. But the wording of the provincial Growth Plan makes it perfectly clear that a secondary plan to bring 25,000 more people to Midhurst was not only unnecessary but actively discouraged by the Province. Check Schedule 7 of the Growth Plan. The mayor writes, “The Province required the Council of the Day to proceed with the Midhurst Secondary Plan”. If she means the plan as adopted by the Township, a simple glance at the above regulations makes this highly unlikely. And if it were to be true, why then in 2010 would the Province have tried to get the County and its municipalities to accept Interim Settlement Area Boundaries - a clear attempt to control the oversupply of development land in Simcoe County.

The mayor said, “We must follow the laws of the land”. Why then she did she write to the Minister of Infrastructure arguing against the Interim Settlement Area Boundaries and begging for more population to be allocated to Springwater than the laws permit. She wrote, “Despite the request made by Springwater in September 2009, the Township was not allocated a further increase in population or employment allocations. Current allocations fail to acknowledge the development potential in the Township within our primary settlement areas.”

But don’t take my word for it - here’s the link:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchComment.o?actionType=preview&commentId=130362&noticeId=MTExMjQx&statusId=MTczMjMw&noticeHeaderIdString=MTExMjQx&noticeHeaderId=MTExMjQx

(Incidentally, it is true that Midhurst was considered to be a primary settlement area in Springwater; but not in Simcoe County. If you follow the link to the Growth Plan, you will see in Schedule 8, that there are seven Provincial primary settlement areas listed. None are in Springwater).

The County - The mayor provides a history of the Midhurst Secondary Plan known as OPA 38. This plan was adopted by Springwater Township on November 3, 2008 in defiance of the 1996 PPS, the 2006 Provincial Growth Plan, IGAP and two letters from Simcoe County which questioned the proposed number of units, the extent of the settlement boundary and general conformity with the Places to Grow legislation. The County wrote a third letter to the Township on December 16, 2008 stating that, “One of (the County’s) concerns is that the forecasted population as a result of the approval of the Official Plan Amendments 37 (Hillsdale) and 38 (Midhurst), would significantly exceed the Township’s population allocation as identified in the Growth Management Study and the adopted County Official Plan. The conformity of these amendments with Provincial legislation and policies and the County Official Plan is necessary to enable County staff to proceed with consideration of these amendments.”

OPA 38 was effectively shut down by the County for three years until, on October 12, 2011, under mysterious circumstances, the County suddenly approved OPA 38 saying that it had been modified and now complied with the PPS and the County Official Plan. But on October 28, 2011, the Province appealed the County’s decision to the OMB stating, “The reasons for this appeal are that the County Council’s decision is not consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS); does not conform to the County of Simcoe Official Plan and is premature”.

But don’t take my word for it. The full version can be found here:
http://www.springwater.ca/UserFiles/Servers/Server_229/File/Municipal%20Services/Planning%20and%20Development/Policies%20By-laws%20and%20Guides/Midhurst%20Secondary%20Plan/Appeals/MMAH%20Appeal%20Midhurst.pdf

So if OPA 38 truly contravenes Provincial policy, is not even required and Jack Hanna, Rick Webster, Perry Ritchie and Sandy McConkey have all at one time or another questioned the wisdom of it, why don’t we just put a stop to it?

Money
The mayor mentioned a possible cost to the Township of $100m if the Township was to rescind OPA 38. She implied that to do so would be breaking the law. This warrants further scrutiny.

On January 19, 2012, three months after the Province wrote to the OMB with its reasons why OPA 38 must be appealed, the Province amended the Growth Plan adding Section 6 specifically for Simcoe County. The new section granted several concessions to Simcoe including allowing two “Strategic Settlement Employment areas” between Barrie and Bradford. (You can see the signs in the fields along the 400). Also dated January 19, 2012 were a set of Transition Regulations 311/06, which included a “Special Rule” intended to permit the first half of the Midhurst development to go ahead. Was this a result of the County writing to the province confirming that the proposed development was to be on lands which were designated Lands for Urban Uses as of January 19, 2012, or perhaps the result of the six or more lobbying letters sent to the Province by the developers? We can’t be sure.

Probably someone will argue that the $100m quoted above is nothing to do with how much developers have spent, it's all about lost future business. I wonder how many businesses would like to secure compensation from customers who changed their mind about buying a product after accepting sales pitches? Sure the developers have had costs. And if their investment doesn’t bear fruit, that’s a business loss and a tax deduction. And any losses would be offset against the 12% per year appreciation in the farmland they purchased between 2006 and 2010.

I can’t imagine any judge awarding a figure of $100m, but this number might even prove to be small compared with the cost of building and maintaining the new infrastructure, as many other municipalities have discovered. Even the County admits that growth doesn’t pay for growth. This is obvious unless growth is backed by some revenue generating industry. Why else would municipalities with high population growth and no industry have the highest taxes?

Then there’s the question of the developers paying for the up-front costs of roads and water plants associated with the development. On this point, I truly hope that the mayor is right. If the development were to go ahead, we must pray that the Township remembers to ensure that the up-front payment requirement get’s typed in bold print in any contract signed with the developers. Also let’s hope that there is an insurance bond in place to protect the Township against deficiencies, incomplete work and other unexpected outcomes.

The mayor wrote “Over the past few years you have heard the perspective of others that proposes a path that conflicts with these laws.” We sure have. The path was proposed and driven by developers, as is usually the case. Perhaps the public must accept some blame for not keeping our eyes open. But it’s hard when people are focused on earning a living, while developers are focused solely on developing. It’s sad that politicians so often allow themselves to be influenced more by big business than by those who elect them.

David Strachan - Midhurst
davidstrachan@me.com This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (I’ll be happy to email the links)