RE: EBR Registry Number…

    RE: EBR Registry Number 013-0426

  Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the new 311/06 Transition Regulations.

  For reasons outlined below, we request the following revision:

  Any “matter” which was transitioned in O.Reg. 311/06 January 19, 2012 and which, despite receiving conditional OMB approval, has not yet resolved its conditions, and/or whose environmental assessment is still incomplete or non-compliant with provincial policy and legislation, and/or which has yet to receive final approval for its plan of subdivision shall be excluded from these transition regulations.

 Consequently, such “matters” must comply with the Growth Plan 2017.

  Brief History

 Although disallowed for three years due to non-compliance with provincial policies, in 2011 the County acquiesced and approved the Midhurst Secondary Plan. This approval was immediately appealed to the OMB for non-compliance by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. But on January 19, 2012, the Ministry of Infrastructure amended the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and introduced a new Chapter 6, which provided special concessions for Simcoe County. The Transition Regulations (311/06) were released shortly thereafter and back dated to January 19, 2012. These regulations included the “Special Rule” which was later confirmed as being for Midhurst in Simcoe County. Clearly, a special rule would not have been required had the proposed development complied with the Growth Plan. Indeed, there are many reasons which confirm that it did not.  Regardless, the developers were able to persuade the soon-to-be-discontinued OMB that the Special Rule was part of the Growth Plan, and that the development should therefore be permitted to proceed - despite its violations. Accordingly, the OMB conditionally approved the development of 6,500 homes on class 1 and 2 farmland in an area with few employment opportunities and where long distance commutes would be the norm.

  Environmental Registry Posting

 The last sentence in the Environmental Registry “Purpose of Regulations” states: “if there are any such matters that currently remain in process, this change would require such matters to be resolved in a timely manner so as not to impact implementation of the Growth Plan, 2017 going forward”.

  Outstanding Issues

 1. The MSP development was approved by the OMB with 150-170 conditions, depending on the specific site. Not one has been satisfied.

 2. The Environmental Assessment is ongoing; and serious flaws have been exposed in several of the reports. (See Issues list and MRA Hydrogeologist’s report sent separately). Final plan of subdivision approval has not been granted.

 3. There are large funding gaps between anticipated infrastructure costs (including long-term maintenance) and projected revenue from development charges and taxes.

 4. For the above reasons, final approval of the MSP development is not expected in the near term.

  Summary of reasons to disallow the “Special Rule” development going forward

 1. The Province clearly wants to achieve a clean start with the Growth Plan 2017.

 2. The MSP development permitted by the “Special Rule” does not comply with Schedule 7 of the Growth Plan 2017. The most striking example is that the actual population growth in Springwater will greatly exceed the 24,000 allocated in the Schedule.

 3. It does not comply with the requirements underpinning many objectives and regulations identified in all versions of the Growth Plan.

 4. It does not comply with the over-riding Provincial Policy Statement and other key legislation (see presentation by MRA lawyer Rod Northey)

 5. Long distance commutes will exacerbate traffic congestion, CO2 emissions and infrastructure costs,all of which are contrary to Growth Plan objectives.

 6. Destruction of the cold water fisheries in Willow and Matheson Creeks is virtually guaranteed. (See MRA Issues list item 4 and Hydrogeologist’s report).

 7. Flooding and pollution of the Minesing Wetlands will degrade these internationally significant wetlands. (Issues list items 6 & 7).

 8. No further approvals, including water-taking permits, are possible until the quantity of available

 groundwater can be shown to be sufficient for current private and municipal users (including north Barrie) and the proposed development, with capacity for natural future growth.     (Issues List item 1).

 9. Areas of archeological significance regarding FN heritage, whose removal from the development area was recommended, have not been dealt with. Furthermore, there are many disagreements between the Township and local First Nations communities about appropriate consultation regarding this development, the affected lands (which have major FN significance) and impacts on water systems within treaty lands.

  We again thank you for the opportunity to participate in this public consultation process. The environment is of the upmost importance to us all and clearly it was for this reason that the Environmental Bill of Rights came into effect.

  We trust that the government will put in place appropriate measures to prevent more damage to the environment, more unnecessary infrastructure costs and more neglect of FN rights and concerns.

  David Strachan

 for the Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association (705) 229-4722

  Attachments (sent separately)

 - Appendix A and B

 - Issues List

 - Hydrogeologist, Tim Lotimer’s presentation to Springwater Township

 - Lawyer, Rod Northey’s presentation to Springwater Township

[Original Comment ID: 209721]