July 31st, 2020 VIA EMAIL…

July 31st, 2020

VIA EMAIL

Ontario Growth Secretariat
Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street
23rd Floor, Suite 2304
Toronto, ON M7A 2J3

To Whom It May Concern:

Re: Proposed Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

Mattamy Homes and Ontario Potato Distributing Inc, have reviewed the proposed Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and wish to provide comments in support of the amendment. We appreciate the effort spent by the Ontario Growth Secretariat in putting this Amendment together and recognizing that the Greater Golden Horseshoe will continue to see increased growth pressures in the years to come. Further, we are pleased to see that the timeframe for population and employment projections is being considered to 2051 rather than 2041.

As noted in the Technical Report prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd., the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton (GTAH) are anticipated in the future to remain the economic engine of Ontario. Urban areas in the south of the County of Simcoe have experienced rapid growth in recent years, and will continue to do so due to those leaving Toronto to find more affordable housing options and those choosing to reduce commuting times by living closer to their jobs. Further, major employers such as Honda, located within the Town of Alliston in the only Provincially Significant Employment Zone (PSEZ) in the County of Simcoe, have continued with steady employment growth. We believe that the Town of New Tecumseth, more specifically Alliston, will see the majority of this growth. As such, it is imperative that land is available and serviced to support the growth.

Proposed Section 6.2.1 notes that a significant portion of population and employment growth will be directed to municipalities that contain primary settlement areas. There are 5 primary settlement areas identified in the County of Simcoe, besides the Cities of Barrie and Orillia, of which Alliston in the Town of New Tecumseth is one of them. This together with the fact that Alliston also has a PSEZ suggests that a large portion of the proposed Schedule 3 population should be directed to this area. We support the proposed policies which require that municipalities must be ready to support these population projections by having sufficient land and service capacity available for future development, and policies that permit all housing types. Directing the majority of growth to these areas makes good planning sense.

We further believe that immigration to the Greater Golden Horseshoe will continue to increase up to 2051 through continued commitment of various Federal programs and policies and the continued attraction of Southern Ontario. As such, we believe the ‘High’ scenario as identified in the Hemson Report for distribution of population in the Greater Golden Horseshoe under Schedule 3 is the most appropriate forecast to be used to support a greater supply of housing leading to more affordable choices and increased economic growth.

Proposed Section 2.2.1.1 notes that population and employment forecasts contained in Schedule 3 or such higher forecasts as established by the applicable upper- or single-tier municipality through its Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) will be used for planning and managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to the horizon of the Plan and in accordance with Section 5.2.4. This proposed policy, in addition to Sections 5.2.4.1 and 5.2.4.2, will allow for additional growth to occur over and above the allocation in Schedule 3, where deemed appropriate and necessary through the MCR process, presumably in areas such as Primary Settlement Areas and those with strong employment. This revision is one that we fully support and feel is necessary to accommodate future growth.

Further, the deletion of the last sentence in the second paragraph of Section 6.1 is appropriate in further supporting the approach to permitting the upper tier municipalities to determine the appropriate amount of growth through an MCR process rather than solely based on a number in Schedule 7. We are supportive of a policy approach that allows upper tier municipalities to make determinations about the appropriate amount of growth that is based on a local analysis and policies rather than one that is limited due to allocations identified in Schedules 3 and 7.

We intend to be involved with the MCR process at the County of Simcoe and trust through this process that population allocation from the growth forecasts identified in Schedule 3 as amended will be appropriated to the various municipalities in line with the policies of Amendment 1.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this draft of proposed Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow. We look forward to continuing to monitor this process.

Andrew Sjogren
Senior Vice President, GTE Land Division
t (905) 907-8371 (direct)