EBR Registry 013-4198:…

EBR Registry 013-4198: Recolour Grey Draft County Official Plan (OP) We applaud Grey County’s goal to use plain language and the creative Recolour perhaps gained attention but we question whether it necessarily ensures the understanding especially the impact of the natural heritage designations. We commend Grey County’s planning department in their acknowledgement that the notification and transparency process in the past was not as it should have been and with County Council’s support, undertook to reinstate sections of settlements reduced in the last official plan review. The province then blocked this reinstatement attempt, denying a reasonable resolution at the municipal level. Within the OP section 3.4.2 Settlement Area Expansions (Comprehensive Reviews): Page 32 is written the province’s edict: To re-establish previously designated settlement area lands, a scoped comprehensive review or scoped update to a comprehensive review will be considered. As a property owner seeking to “re-establish” land use designation, there is not a clear understanding of the complex process of the scoped review or whether this aspect may only be initiated at the direction of the municipality. If we, as residents question the language, we certainly are not equipped for ultimate impact as written in OP section 7. NATURAL GREY Pages 118 to 136. It is in this section that the Recolour draft introduces the environmental layers of restrictions on lands in relation to the County’s natural heritage system (or NHS) study – Green in Grey (January 2017). The Credit Valley Conservation website, indicates that a NHS is a “system made up of natural heritage features and areas, and linkages intended to provide connectivity”. It further stated it applied to “areas that are owned and/or managed by a variety of public agencies”. The NHS was mandated by Provincial Policy Statement 2014 which the newly elected government’s web site now posts a disclaimer “This information was posted under a previous government”. The EBR is based on the goal of protection, conservation and restoration of the natural environment but it also includes the means to ensure that it is achieved in an “effective, timely, open and fair manner”. Where is the fairness when residents simply seek to “re-establish” expropriated rights but now are faced with a costly Environmental Impact Study (EIS). (Refer to Grey County planning application OPA 137. A seasonal inland lake lot generated a 84-page EIS). Few residents or even the incoming County Council (50% newly elected) have taken into account the planning impact of the NHS designations. The productive farm field severance will continue to be the preferred rural lot development route as marginal lands endure more provincial mandated designations unfairly burdening property with costly and onerous studies