05 05 2008 Sp PAC AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SPECIAL)
MEETING AGENDA
Council Chambers
Date: Monday, May 5, 2008 Time: 7:00 p.m.
Opening of Meeting by Chair
2. Adoption of Agenda
3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in
Accordance with the Act
4. Discussion
{a) Review of the County of Simcoe draft "Simcoe Area Growth Plan"
5. Adjournment
Schedule l
County Officers CO 08-012
~~
Prepared By:
DRAFT
For Public Review
Page 1
~~1V1~~1"V
(~t~~~~_~Ii~_r~~; l..trlr
April 2008
Schedule 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
County Officers CO 08-012
Page 2
1 THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE HAS PREPARED A GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ........................... 1
A. Concerns Have Been Raised about Growth in Simcoe ................................................ 1
B. The Province Has Provided Strong New Policy Directions ..... ......................................... 5
C. The County of Simcoe Is Preparing a New Official Plan ....::......................................... 8
II GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY PROCESS WAS DESIGNED TO BUILD CONSENSUS
AROUND THE KEY DECISIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE ..........:................................. 11
A. A Committee of Elected Officials Directed the Study ...................................... 12
B. Sub-committees Were Struck to Address the Key Issues ............................................... 13
C. Recommendations Were Made as the Basis for the C_;rowth Plan ......... . ............................. 15
111 THE SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN RECOMMENDS A COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND
POLICIES TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................ 16
A. Population Growth Is Distrit:~uted in I farce Steps ..................................................... 17
B. Employment Is Distributed According to Provincial and Lor<i1Objectives ................................. 22
C. Recreation-based Housing Should Bc Limited to Specific Locations ..................................... 25
D. Development of Hea1[hy Communities Should fie ~~ Priority ........................................... 27
IV SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN NOW NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNCIL
AND INCORPORATED INTO A NEW OFFICIAL PLAN .................................................. 31
A. Growth Plan Will Be Implemented Through the New Official Plan ...................................... 31
B. Detailed Planning Will Bea (_ocal Municipal Responsibility ........................................... 32
C. Province Needs to Be a Partner in Implementation .................................................. 33
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 35
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 3 ` ~`
1 THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE HAS PREPARED A GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The County of Simcoe has been growing steadily over the
past 25 years and is expected to experience strong pressure for
growth in the planning period to 2031. In order to respond to
this pressure, the County of Simcoe has prepared a growth
management strategy called the Simcoe Area Growth Plan.
The Simcoe Area Growth Plan was undertaken primarily in
response to shifting public perceptions about growth, in
particular concerns about the effects of urban development
on the environment and the quality and sustainability of
new communities. The Simcoe Area Growth Plan was also
prepared to implement a number of new Provincial policy
directions regarding long-range planning and ~.;rotvr I ~ ~ ,~~nage-
ment in Ontario.
The Simcoe Area Growth Plan defines rl ~~,~ ai~tounr, Location
and character of community de~cl~~F~~ni,~n~ to 2031. The
framework provided in the Simcoe Area i growth Plan will be
implemented by the ~:~~~ru~'~ new official elan, ~~~hich is
anticipated to be completed !r, September 20i''~. T«~o other
foundation studies, the Transportation Master Plan and the
Natural Heritage System Update, ~ti~ill provide Similar policy
directions on matters related to transpcrl:~tion planning and
environmental protection.
A. CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT
GROWTH IN SIMCOE
The Simcoe C~n~nr~~ Area is an area defined as the County of
Simcoe and the ,ep~~,r~~ted cities of Barrie and Orillia, as
illusrrated on the main on the following page. This area is
di~rinct from municipal S~in~~ ~~,. County, which excludes the
sep,~r u~~,l ~.~~ ies and the Feat Nations communities.'
The Simcoe County Area continues to experience high
le~°cls of building activity, mainly because it is a very attrac-
tive locatiutl for growth. There is a developed transportation
nct~~~~~rk, accessibility from Simcoe to employment centres in
the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton (GTAH) and a
large potential supply of reasonably priced housing within an
area with many attractive natural features.
Rapid population growth in the GTAH, combined with
tightening land markets, particularly in the Region of York,
has made the Simcoe County Area even more attractive for
growth and development.
' In this report, "Simcoe County Area" refers to the
geographic area of Simcoe County, avhich includes municipal Simcoe
County in addition to the cities of Barrie and Orilka and the First
Nations communities. The term Simcoe County, or the County of
Simcoe, refers to municipal Simcoe County excluding the separated
cities and First Nations communities.
HEMSON
Schedule 1
County Officers CO 08-012
SIMCOE COUNTY AREA
Page 4
Christian Island
Penet, <ruishene Severn
rr
cumberlon., Ramara
i`0., - Beach "~
' Midland `~.~
ar r~
Tayq~rillia
Tiny °
Elmvalo '
Wasaga ' Oro-
Collingwood Beach Spririgwater Medgnte.
Midhursf "
~~
~~
Srayner B a r ri e
° Clearview ' - ° -~,~: Q Provincial Greenbelt
~_- y Alcona
~~ '
c° re Innis~l ~ Settlement Areas
Essa
° _a~,,~,:.:- Bradford-
Adjala- v West
Tosorontio Braatara .
~' E Gwillimbury
Artist°~ ~ ~ New
Tec~mseth
&eeton
Tottenhar:
Source: Hemson Consulting Lid. Settlement Areas as those shown in the Built Boundary for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006
Prepared by Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Fall 2006
4 1
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012
3
1. Population and Employment Have Grown Over 2. There Is Significant Pressure for New Land
the Last 25 Years Designations
As shown below, population in the Simcoe County Area has
grown steadily since 1981. The population has nearly
doubled, growing from approximately 240,000 in 1981 to
almost 440,000 in 2006.
Growth has been particularly strong in the more recent
Census periods, including employment, which has grown
significantly. After growing only moderately over the 15 years
from 1981 to 1996, employment growth in the most recent
decade has accelerated -from just over 100,000 jobs iil
1996 to nearly 185,000 jobs in 2006.
Page 5 '
As a resulr of continued population and employment growth
and the atrracriveness of Simcoe County Area as a location
for urban devcloi~ment, there is strong pressure for the
ap}~roval of new urban land designations:
• From the perspective c~i ire development community,
the C~TAH market is becoming land-constrained with
the result that they believe there is a major opportunity
to accommodate additional growth in the Simcoe
~ounry Area.
• Retlecting this view, there is a growing pressure to
~~ccommodate growth beyond currently planned com-
mitments through the designation of additional urban
lands for development.
• As illustrated on the map on the following page, the
expectations of the development community combined
with the currently approved land supply would result in
a 2031 population of nearly 1 million people, which
would represent a significant acceleration of growth
compared to the past.
• A series of "Enterprise Zones" have also been proposed
on behalf of the Simcoe Chapter of the Building Indus-
try and Land Development Association (BILD). The
proposed Enterprise Zones could potentially accommo-
date more than 80,000 jobs, an amount similar to the
total employment growth over the last decade.
HEMSON
Schedule 1
County Officers CO 08-012
SELECTED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN SIMCOE COUNTY
Page 6
Christian Island
my
Severn
Tay
Ramara
Collingwood Wasaga
Beach Springwater
Clearview
Belterra ~
Pop.: 6,000
Adjala-
Potato Distributors Tosoront
Pop.: 50,000 ~,~..
~m
Oro-Medonte
Maple Bay
Pop.: 17,000
Lockhart Mapleview
Pop.: t 2,000
Leonard's Beach
Pop.: 2Q000
Hewson's Village
Pop.: 53,000
Proposed
Enterprise
Zones
Bradford Bradford-Bond Head/
West Gwillimbury Geranium
Pop.: 70,000
Population Potential
In Proposed New
Communities
Total Population
in Proposals
230,000
Population in
Registered & Draft
Approved
530,000
Greenfield Population
Potential
160,000
Total Potential
Population
920,000
posed New
Em to ment Areas
Enterprise Zones
83,000 )obs
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. , Simcoe Counfy Planning Staff, Hemson Directions Report 2007 and Employment Lands Development Strategy for Simcoe County,
Prepared on Behalf of The Simcoe Chapter, Building, Indushy and land Development (BILDI.
{
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 7
5
3. Concerns Are Growing About the Effects of New B. THE PROVINCE HAS PROVIDED STRONG NEW
Development on the Environment POLICY DIRECTIONS
In response to this growth pressure, a number of concerns
have been expressed about the environment. These concerns
typically focus on the effect of new development on the
environment, agriculture and water resources:
Generally, over past decades in Ontario, there has been
a growing expectation by the public that the natural
environment should be given a higher priority in
decision-making for long-range land use planning and
growth management;
In the Simcoe County Area, the public and organized
interest groups are concerned about the effects of
growth on the water and agricultural resources, heritage
resources, the costs of growth, traffic and ~cman~ls on
health care;
Partly in respr~nse to growing concerns about growth, land
deveh~pment arnl effects on the natural environment, the
Frog inct: cif Ont~~rio his recently undertaken some important
in i t i a rives with respect a> planning and growth management.
The. ne~~r Provincial policy .initiatives are made up of the
f~~lluwin~; major elements:
• The Greenbelt Act (2005);
• The nei~~ Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2005);
• The Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
H~~rseshoe (the Growth Plan, 2006); and
• Recent amendments to the Planning Act, collectively
referred to as Bill 51.
In July 2006, the Lake Simcoe and Notr<nva~ ~,,~i Valley
Conservation Authoritica completed the _1~>s~nilativ~
Capacity Studies (ACS) for the Lake ~ima~e AV'~rershed
and Nottawasaga River. These studies were un~lertakcn
to develop new analytical. tools to man,~,re the growth
pressures being placed on the municipalities within
these two watersheds; and
In July 2007, the Ontario government announced the
Lake Simcoe Protection Act, which would take actions to
protect the health of lake Simcoe, including sewage
treatment standards and limits on pollutants such as
phosphorous, as well as a new structure for decision-
making about Lake Simcoe.
Of these initiatives, two are particularly relevant to growth
management in the Simcoe County Area: the Growth Plan
and the Bill 51 Planning Act Amendments. Taken together
these are strong new policy directions that the County of
Simcoe and its municipal partners are able to use to develop
a local solution to growth management.
HEMSON
Schedule 1
County Officers CO 08-012
6
1. Provincial Growth Plan Describes the Provincial
Vision for Growth
The Growth Plan has the most significant implications for
long-range planning and growth management in the Simcoe
County Area. The Growth Plan sets the overall growth
forecasts to be used for planning and provides direction on
how that growth is to be accommodated:
Overall, the Growth Plan forecast is for a total of ap-
proximately 11.5 million people and 5.6 million jobs in
the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), with the
majority of this growth focussed in the GTAH where
the existing population and employment base is concen-
trated;
The Growth Plan also identifies a set ofUrhan Growth
Centres intended to be a focus for inve~nnent,
high-density major employment:. centres and ~1~ajor
transit infrastructure. The city of harrie is the only
Urban Growth Centre in the Simc~~e C~nmty Are~~; rind
For the Simcoe County- Area, the (irou~th Plan ~~llucates
a total population of C~~7,000 people and 274,~~00 john
in 2031. These forea~sr~ ~.~e provided in Schedule 3 r~
the Growth Plan and include the separated cities of
Barrie and Orillia and the First Nations c~nnmunities.~
` For additional detail on these Provincial policy directions
and the issue of growth in the separated cities, see the Directions
Report, Hemson Consulting Ltd. , September 2007.
Page 8
The Growth Plan. forecast neither accelerates nor decelerates
growth in the Simcoe County Area, but rather maintains the
level of del~eh~i~ment activity that has been occurring over
the past ?~~ ~~e~~rs. A number of key points warrant attention
with ren~anl~ ro the forecast:
O.~erall, the G~-~au~th Plan forecast allocations are lower
than many other expectations of the level of future
~~r~_nvth in the Simcoe Ct>nnty Area.
The reason is that the Growth Plan forecast allocations
im-olve a specific policy decision to shift growth within
the GGH towards the priority emerging urban centres
in ~~Uaterloo Region, Niagara Region, and Wellington
and Branr Counties.
The Growth Plan forecasts, therefore, do not misjudge or
underestimate the growth potential for the Simcoe
County Area, but rather reflect a deliberate policy
choice by the Province to not accelerate growth in this
location. These are the legislated, in-force forecasts that
must be used for growth management.3
~ That there is a potential fox higher growth in the Simcoe
County Area is a view widely held amongst the development
community. As noted earlier, the combination of the designated land
supply and proposed developments could result in a toted 2031
population of nearly 1 million people.
3 The Province may revise the forecasts in five years, but
this will not occur until after the deadline for bringing official plans
into conformity with the Growth Plan (June 16, 2009) .
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 9
In addition to setting the overall growth forecast, the Growth 2. Recent Amendments to the Planning Act Provide
Plan also provides clear direction on how that growth is to be Additional Tools for Managing Growth
accommodated. Under the Growth Plan:
• Major growth is directed to settlement areas that are
designated for growth;
• Development outside settlement areas is generally
restricted, except for some resource-based or recre-
ational activities and rural uses that cannot be located
in settlement areas and in site-specific rural locations
with existing approvals; and
• A set of specific intensification and density targets is to
be achieved - a minimum 40% of all residential units
to be accommodated within the built-up area after 2015
and new greenfield development is to ach iet ~~ .r density
of 50 residents and jobs combined per hn; anu
• The provision and protection of empLc~y~,ncnr land
opportunities is a key priority. Thy ~r~ is a strong empha-
sis in the Growth Plan on pro~i,~;n~~ .u~ ade~iuate sup~l~~
of employment land t~~ ~•~~sure th~~ ~italit~ of the f'~GH
and Provincial economy and to pronT~~te the _~c~°elop-
ment of "complete communities."i
Also in r~~~i~,~n~~~ to concerns about managing growth and
protecting the environment, the Province of Ontario has
made :~ numbe::~~ amendments to the Planning Act, collec-
tively referred to as Bill 51.
1`~1an}' <,f these reforms relate r, > the Ontario Municipal Board
(C~lv~1B) :and are intended tc~ ~~ssist in the implementation of
the nci~~ Provincial policies. Under the Bill 51 Planning Act
amendments, municipalities in the Simcoe County Area will
no 1 un s;er he required to respond to development applications
to expand urban boundaries or change land use designations
a; the}~ have in the past.
3. Local Municipalities Have Also Been Taking a
Leadership Role
In response to growth pressure, some local municipalities in
the Simcoe County Area have become involved in exercises
to accelerate growth beyond their current commitments.
Some of the initiatives include:
' Defined in the Growth Plan. G~:n~ ,ally, a "complete
community" is one that has an appropriate mix of jobs, local services
and housing, community infrastructure and affordable housing,
schools, recreation and open space and convenient access to public
transportation.
Investments in servicing infrastructure to improve or
upgrade existing systems;
Expansions of designated settlement areas to increase
the supply of land for development, including additional
land for employment purposes;
5
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 10
8
• Approval of local official plan amendments, including Reeent Planning Act amendments provide a greater
a number of applications for seasonal, lifestyle or ability for the County and its local municipal partners
"recreation-based" housing outside of designated settle- to implement these new objectives; and
ment areas; and
A number of growth management studies or official plan
review processes prepared to support local planning for
higher levels of growth.
Much of this activity, however, was initiated prior to recent
amendments to the Planning Act, when local municipalities
were obliged to respond to privately-led applications for
urban expansion.
4. Provincial Policies Provide the Tools to Develop a
Comprehensive Framework to Manage Growth
Typically in a growth management exercise, three ~_iuesrions
need to be answered: how much growth should Lac ~~ccot7imo-
dated? Where should that growth be accrnnnx>~lated? And
what form should it take?Taken i~ ~~:~cther, the ne~l~ Pro~~inci<il
policy directions provide a ;irniticant atl~ount of ~~ui~jancc f~>r
addressing these questions:
The Provincial Growth 1'fan sets the overall growth
forecast to be used for lon~Y-r~n~~e plannin;*, typically
one of the most contentious elements of any long-range
planning exercises;
The Growth Plan also requires that a set of "good plan-
ning" principles be adhered to, including a more com-
pact urban form, higher densities and a greater level of
intensification;
• The Simcor County Area has been instructed by the
Province ro ~icvelop an area-wide solution to growth
-"'-tnanagemenr ~.-itl~in this context, notwithstanding that
F~arrie and Oril I is are separated cities and outside of the
Connry's planning jurixliction.
In res~c:use to the public's concern about growth, and to
imi~lcmcnt new Provincial policy directions, Simcoe County
has Diet cluoed a comprehensive growth management
frame~~°ork t, ~ ,; le the implementation of current planning
cr~mmitmcnt~ and address pressure for development outside
the ~lesi~n~tt:ed settlement areas. This framework is called the
Simcoe. Area Growth Plan and provides key input and
direction to the County's new official plan.
C. THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE IS PREPARING A
NEW OFFICIAL PLAN
The Simcoe Area Growth Plan will provide input and
direction to the new County official plan by setting out the
overall urban structure of the County and other policies
required to manage growth. Two other major studies are also
being undertaken as input to the preparation of the new
official plan: the Transportation Master Plan and the Natural
Heritage System Update.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012
9
1. County Planning Sets the Broad Framework for 2. New Official Plan Must Conform with New
Development and Land Use Provincial Policies
The role of the County of Simcoe official plan is to set the
broad policy framework for development and land use,
including the growth and development of the community.
The County is also the approval authority for local land use
planning applications. One of the main challenges to
planning in Simcoe County, however, is that the County
lacks many of the tools for growth management, particularly
with respect to the delivery of services. For example:
While the County provides a number of municipal
services such as long-term care and paramedic services,
social housing and waste management, water and
wastewater systems are managed locally;
The local municipalities also provide orhe~ a~nununity
services such as fire, libraries, parks and recrc~irion and
police services; and
Community and health care sen ic,~~ .ire ~lelivrred b~,
other agencies, includingthe Sin~i~ ~. ~~~ :fit u,koka histrict
Health Unit and h~„~~iral beards.
As a result of the wide range of <<~r~ice providers and funning
arrangements, growth managem~ ~ ~? -: ~ .dlong-rang. planning
in Simcoe County must be underta;~ ~ n ~ n a cooperative and
collaborative manner .1
~ For detail see the 2006 Municipal Services Background
Report. See Appendix A for references for the four Backgrourul
Reports prepared in 2006.
Page 11
The Col~nty's new official plan will also need to conform
with ncl.~ Provincial Policies, in particular the PPS (2005)
and I'ro<<incial {i~~~~aurh Plan:
The PPS requires that a coordinated approach be taken
to addressing issues that cross municipal boundaries,
including infrastructure and public services, environ-
mcntal'" issues and housing and employment growth
i~rojections;
In the case of a two-tier planning system, the PPS
ass igns the responsibility for coordinating and allocating
such ;rowth projections to upper-tier governments, in
consultation with lower-tier governments; and
• The Growth Plan also requires that upper-tier munici-
palities allocate growth projections to the lower-tier
municipalities, identify intensification and density
targets and provide policy direction on matters that
cross municipal boundaries.
Under the Places to Grow Act, the deadline for bringing the
County official plan into conformity with the Growth Plan is
June 16, 2009. It is the County's intention to complete its
official plan in advance of this date, in order to give local
municipalities sufficient time to bring their plans into
conformity with the County's plan.
HEMSON
Schedule I County Officers CO 08-012 Page 12
10
3. Simcoe Area Growth Plan Is One of Three Studies The second chapter describes the study process which
Being Prepared for the New Official Plan was desi~~ed to build consensus around a small number
of kev issue;
The Simcoe Area Growth Plan is one of three major pieces
of work that are being undertaken as part of the County's
official plan review. The other two studies are:
• The Transportation Master Plan, which will develop a
future vision for transportation in Simcoe, including a
vision for the role that pedestrian, cycling, transit and
road components can play in servicing future transpor-
tation needs; and
• The Natural Heritage System Update, which will update
the key features and functional elements of the natural
heritage of the County, currently mapped as greenlands
in the official plan (1999).
The major lakes of Simcoe and Cuuchichin~ as well as
Georgian Bay and surface and ground«~atcr supply are
also considered important components of thr C~>unty's
ecological system. The Natural Hcritag~ System Update
will refine and update the County's current ~~reenlapds
as part of the new official plan.
The remainder of this report describes the Siu~coe Area
Growth Plan and is structured around three sections:
The third chapter describes the Simcoe Area Growth
Plan i ncludin~r the amount and distribution of growth
and policies f<n- c<~mmuniry form; and
The final chapter addresses implementation, including
therole that the Counry=, local municipalities and the
Province will need tc~ play.
It is important to note that the Simcoe Area Growth Plan is
not a dcrlileci lend use plan. It is astrategic-level foundation
stud~~ for the County's official plan review process which will
he implemented through the official plan and land use
schedules therein. It will also be implemented through the
new official plans of the local municipalities in municipal
Simcoe County.
It is also important to note that, although this is a plan for
the Simcoe County Area, the County of Simcoe does not
have the authority to make planning decisions for the cities
of Barrie and Orillia or First Nations communities. These
communities were included in the study process only for the
purposes of addressing the distribution of growth which was
necessary to satisfy the Province's request that the Counry of
Simcoe develop a local solution to growth management.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page I3
11
11 GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY PROCESS WAS DESIGNED TO BUILD CONSENSUS AROUND
THE KEY DECISIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE
The most significant challenge to managing growth in
Simcoe County is the complex decision-making environment
and wide range of interests involved:
• The Pnpulntiun, Households and Employment Forecasts
Update report prepared for the County of Simcoe by
Hanson Consulting Ltd. in May 2004.
• The Province, the public and concerned stakeholder
groups are resisting urban expansion in favour of higher
densities, more intensification and a more efficient use
of the existing land supply;
• Local municipalities are interested in playing a leaders-
hip role in managing growth; and
• The development industry is pushing f~~r new urban
land designations and in some cases entirely new
communities.
The County of Simcoe recognized that effectis~ely devcl~.pi ng
a growth management strategy within this context re~iuires
an approach that brought ~~rder and clarity to the issues and
engaged the various political and decision-making interests
in the study process. It was also recognized that the specific
technical issues regarding growth man~igement in the Simcoe
County Area had already been largely addressed. Some of the
major studies and reports already undertaken on the matter
of growth management include:
• The tivork and various reports prepared as part of the
I'rc,vinial Intergover7imental Action Plan (IGAP) study
process.
• The Assimilative Capacity Studies (ACS) for the Lake
Simcoe Watershed and Nottawasaga River prepared by
the Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Authorities completed at the end of 2006;
• The growth management background reports prepared
in the summer of 2006;
• The Assessment of Water Supply and Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities undertaken for the County of Simcoe in
August 2007; and
• The range of technical work and supporting documenta-
tion prepared as input to the I6 local official plans in
Simcoe County, including analyses of servicing capac-
ity, municipal finance, long-range land use planning
and environmental protection;'
' A bibliography of the various reports and studies that have
already been undertaken is provided in Appendix A.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 14
12
A. A COMMITTEE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
DIRECTED THE STUDY
Given the complex decision-making environment and that
much of the technical work had already been completed, the
County of Simcoe decided to structure a growth management
study process as aconsensus-building exercise. The primary
objective was to make decisions around a small number of
key growth management issues -mainly how much, and
where the growth should go -rather than undertake
additional technical analyses.
Based on the 2004 report, the County had initiated a process
to develop sucl-i a strategy, but delayed that work in order to
participate in the Provincial IGAP study process, which was
completed in the summer of 2006. At the same time, the
Province ~~~.~, al«~ finalizing the Growth Pkrn for the GGH.
Buildu~~~ on the n~~c~mentum generated by IGAP and new
Pr~~rincial policies, the County of Simcoe initiated this
~~r~~wth management study its the summer of 2006, beginning
with seri~°s ~~f background reports and growth management
worlsh<~ps that were held with local Councilors and staff
durin<„ the summer of 2006.2
1. This Growth Management Study Was Initiated in
the Summer of 2006
The County's growth management stratc~p ori~inall~~ began
with the preparation of the Popukttion, i lrn~seh~~l~ arul
Employment Forecasts Update report by Hemson Ccn:~sultin~
Ltd. in May 2004. i
The 2004 forecast update rei~~~rt presentc~l <~ "current trends"
forecast scenario and recommended that a comprehensi~•c
growth management exercise be undertaken. The re~rt
recognized that the Simcoe County Area was under signifi-
cant growth pressure, and that a srritcny for man~rging that
growth needed to be put in place.
2. In 2007 a Committee of Elected Officials Was
Established to Direct The Study Process
Arising out of the 2006 County growth management work-
shops was a clear direction that a steering committee of
elected officials should be established to direct the growth
management study process. Accordingly, the Growth Process
Steering Committee was established by County Council in
March 2007.
` Four background reports were prepared: the Provincial
Policies Background Report; the Housing Services Background
Report; the Hard Services Background Report; and the Municipal
' For details, see the Population, Households and Services Background Report Councillors and staff from local
Employment Forecasts Update report by Hemson ConsultingLtd. , municipalities also participated in a facilitated round-table meeting to
May 2004• discuss the IGAP recommendations.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 15
The cities of Barrie and Orillia were invited to participate in
the Growth Process Steering Committee. The city of Orillia
participated and the city of Barrie elected to have observer
status at the meetings.
The role of the Growth Management Steering Committee is
to provide overall guidance to the development of growth
management plans and policies, which would become part of
the County's new official plan, which will set out the vision
and legal framework for long-range planning for growth in
the County of Simcoe.
B. SUB-COMMITTEES WERE STRUCK TO ADDRESS
THE KEY ISSUES
The Growth Process Steering Committee was als~~ >i ~.~~n the
mandate to strike appropriate w~>rkin~ ~~n~~.ih, or
sub-committees as part of the study pruces to address the key
growth management issues to be resol~~cd.'
Accordingly, the key issue , were identified in the 2007
Directions Reportandanuml~~_~~nfsub-commic•~~~_~~<<.~~~~_ ,n~irl:_
to address them. A program .~f c ~,mmunity an.l <i.~4~eholder
consultations was also undertakes ~, i~ ~ ~ I siding p ~ ~ I l ~ c meetings,
forums with the development cos ~ ~~ ~ n ~ ~ n ~ r ~ ~ ~ n. ! organized
interests and consultation with local munit Tralities.
' The membership, terms of reference and mandate of the
growth process sub-committees and the Growth Process Steering
Committee are provided in Appendix B.
13
1. Directions Report Was Prepared to Identify the
Key Growth Management Issues
The Dire! ions I~ ~~~>ort was finalized in September 2007. The
report dcs~ ; it.~ , . he implications of the Provincial Growth
PIaT~ , the key ~: ~ ~ ~«~th management issues that needed to be
addressed and the kcy r,sks that needed to be undertaken to
address them. These are summarized below.
The key task that needed to be undertaken was to
determine the community structure for the Simcoe
County Area. To do this, the issue of the distribution of
growth to the local municipalities, including the cities
ut I3r~n-ic and Orillia, needed to be addressed.
• Other tasks that needed to be undertaken included the
etting of density and intensification targets, and
determination of the need for employment land and role
of seasonal and recreational housing.
• The Directions Report also identified a need to examine
the argument that growth was "required" to improve the
community's fiscal position, or to provide other benefits
to the community.
In terms of approach, the Directions Report suggested that a
number of sub-committees be established to deal with these
topics, and that a stakeholder involvement and communica-
tions strategy be developed. Members of the Steering Com-
mittee also indicated a desire to include healthy lifestyle
considerations in the determination of future community
structure. This is the approach that was taken.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 16
2. Five Sub-Committees Were Established
Implementing the recommendations ofthe Directions Report,
five sub-committees were struck to address the key issues and
make recommendations to the overall Growth Process
Steering Committee. The five growth process sub-committees
that were established were:
• The Health and Lifestyles sub-committee;
• The Municipal Finance sub-committee;
• The Community Structure sub-committee;
• The Employment Land sub-committee; and
• The Seasonal, Recreational, Institutional Housing
sub-committee.
The sub-committees were not decision-making bodies, but
rather their role was to examine specific issues and make
recommendations that would be considered h~~ the Growth
Process Steering Committee. To this end, the ~~rowrh process
sub-committees met more than 20 times during lute ZOO l and
early 2008 to review and deliberate on the key is>ue,:
The Health and Lifesr~~les sub-committee met ~~n
October 16, 2007; Not-ember 13, 2007; and Janu~u}~ 2 3,
2008;
The Municipal Finance sub-conimittec met on October
16, 2007; November 6, 2007; N~~~~cinhei- 26, 2007;
January 18, 2008; February 11, 2i~~a&, and February 22,
2008;
The Community Structure sub-committee met on
October 15, 2007; November 20, 2007; February 6,
2008; March 6, 2008; and March 26, 2008;
14
• The Employment Land sub-committee met on October
15, 2007; November 22, 2007; February 4> 2008; and
March 13, Z00$; and
• The Seasonal, Recreational, Institutional Housing
Huh-committee metonOctober 18, 2007;November29,
200%; Februar} 1?, 2008; and March 18, 2008.
3. A Program of Public Consultation Was Also
Undertaken v
In addition to the meetings and deliberations of the sub-
committees, a program of community and stakeholder
consulraticros was undertaken during the fall of 2007. The
program i~icluded:
• 'Presentations of the 2007 Directionu Report to local
municipal Councils in Simcoe County through Septem-
ber and October 2007;
A series of four public meetings: October 16, 2007 at
the Elmvale Community Centre; October 18, 2007 at
the Thornton Arena; October 22, 2007 at the Barrie
County Club; and October 23, 2007 at the Orillia
Highwayman Inn; and
A forum for the development community on October
25, 2007 in the County Council Chambers and for the
organized interest groups on October 27, 2007 also in
the County Council Chambers.
HEMS4N
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page I7
15
Throughout the study process, opportunities for written
submissions were provided through the County's growth plan
website at www.growth.simcoe.ca. Input was also sought from
local area planners and senior management and other local
stakeholders, including;
• Working sessions with the local municipal planners;
• An analysis of existing Growth Plan densities in Simcoe
County was undertaken as input to the determination
of the ~3rnsity targets;
• An annly,i, ~>f employment growth by major type was
undertaken a~ input to the estimates of future employm-
cn~ land rec~uiremcnts; and
• A working session with local municipal Chief Adminis-
trative Officers; and
• Consultation with the First Nations communities.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE AS THE
BASIS FOR THE GROWTH PLAN
Through the committee meetings and delibcrati~~ns, .~~~ista-
nce was provided, as necessary, by Hemon C~msultii,~ Ltd.
in the form of analyses and meeting facilitation. Whcrc new
technical information was required, an.~l~~sis ~~~az undertaken.
In particular:
• A municipal fiscal imp:~c< analysis was undertaken ro
estimate the effects of different growth scenarios on a
community's financial position;
• An estimate of 2006 seasonal or recreation-based units
was prepared as input to the developitlcnt of policies for
this type of development;
• Ail analysis of the 206 Census population, housing and
empk~}`ment figures ~~~as undertaken as input to the
distribution of growth scenarios.
As a result ~f the work of the sub-committees, input from the
cmm~urnity~ <ind local municipalities and assistance from
flems~m Consulting Ltd., recommendations were prepared
and prc.ented to the Growth Process Steering Committee on
Marsh 27, 2008.
With some minor modifications, amendments and additions,
the sub-committee recommendations were approved by the
Growth Management Steering Committee in March, 2008
and then by the Corporate Services Committee in April
2008. These recommendations are the basis for the Simcoe
Area Growth Plan which is discussed in the next chapter.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 18
16
111 THE SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN RECOMMENDS A COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND
POLICIES TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
The Simcoe Area Growth Plan has been developed within The k~~~: ~r~~wth m,magement issue addressed in the Simcoe
the context of the approach and Provincial direction Area ~ ~ ruw ~h Plan is nc~ distribution of this growth, which is
described in the previous chapter. Within this context, this di,cu.,:,cd in the follo«°in~,r sections. Also discussed are the
chapter discusses the three tasks that needed to be completed recommended policies for recreation-based housing and for
to develop the Simcoe Area Growth Plan: rile dc~°el~p~ent of healthy communities
• Determine the distribution of the overall Growth Plan
population and employment growth forecasts to the
local municipalities within Simcoe County;
• Develop policies for recreation-based housing; and
• Develop policies for the development of healthy com-
munities, includingthe density and intensification
targets that will guide future development.
It is im}x~rtant to note, again, that the County, in order to
develo~~ an area-wide plan, has undertaken to distribute the
"un~illocated" components of both population and employ-
mcnr growth shown in the Provincial disaggregation of the
Gro firth Plan Schedule 3 forecasts. An alternative distribution
of growth may need to be considered based on further input
from the Province.
With respect to the first task, there is little room for dch~~re.
The overall amount of gro~a~th for the Simcoe County Area
is determined by the Provinci~~l Growth Plan, as it is for the
other upper-tier communities ~~~ithin the GGH.
The distribution of population growth is based on the overall
Growth Plan forecast allocation fora total of 667,000 people
and 254,000 jobs in 2031. This represents a growth of
approximately 228,400 people from the 2006 Census total
population of 438,600, and a growth of approximately 70,500
jobs from the 2006 Census employment of 183,500.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 19
With respect to the issue of growth in the separated cities of
Barrie and Orillia, the Province provided additional guidance
on appropriate figures to be used for Barrie and Orillia. The
Provincial disaggregation of the Growth Plan forecasts is
summarized below. ~
Table 1
Distribution of Population and Employment
Simcoe County Area, 2001 to 2031 (OOOs)
Population 2001 2031
Simcoe County 254 406
City of Barrie 108 180
City of Orillia 30 41
Unallocated Growth 0 40
Aggregated Forecasts 392 667
Employment 2001 ?[) ~1
Simcoe County 85 1 3"?
City of Barrie ~3 88
City of Orillia 16 ?1
Unallocated Growth o I
Aggregated Forecasts 154 274
Source: Ontario Growth Secretariat, 2003
~ The disaggregation of the Schedule 3 forecast allocations
is provided in a letter from the Ontario Growth Secretariat dated
January 16, 2008 and is attached as Appendix C. An "unallocated"
portion of growth is shown in the disaggregation.
17
A. POPULATION GROWTH IS DISTRIBUTED IN
THREE STEPS
The methcxl fnr distributing population growth is made up of
three stc}~s. The first step is for each local municipality to
achieve its appa~~rved official plan populationtarget. The
scc~~nd step is to address the issue of growth in the separated
cities, ~,-hich was deter mined .through Provincial negotia-
tions. Together, these twc~ steps result in the distribution of
appr<»imate~y 80% of growth. The remaining growth is
disn-ihi~tcd based on patterns of market demand.
I. Majority of Growth Is Distributed Based on
Existing Local Official Plan Commitments
The majority of this population growth in Simcoe County is
allocated based on approved official plan forecasts for each
local municipality. The total of the local official plan
forecasts is approximately 607,800 people, representing
growth of approximately 169,200 people from the 2006
population of 438,600 or 75% of the total growth to be
distributed.
This is considered an appropriate approach to the distribu-
tion of growth for many reasons:
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 20
• The approved official plan forecasts are an indication of
each community's growth aspirations;
• The plans involved extensive technical analyses,
consideration of the environment, community consulta-
tionand stakeholder involvement and were all prepared
through a legislated public process;
• Included in the background analyses to the local official
plans is a number of studies regarding servicing capacity
and the ability to accommodate growth;
• The approved local official plans are inconformity wide
the County greenlands; and
• The local official plans have legal status. They were
reviewed by a wide range of Provincial and other
agencies and ultimately approved by the C:~n~nty of
Simcoe or the Province.
2. Growth in Separated Cities Was Determined
Through Provincial Negotiations
The next step is to address the issue of growth in the ~epa-
ratedcities. According to the Province, the 2031 populations
for the city of Barrie and city of C~rillia are identified as
180,000 and 41,000, respectively. The city of C~rillia popula-
tion is maintained at 41,000. Some additional growth,
however, has been allocated to the city cif Barrie:
18
An additional 10,000 beyond its official plan population
target hay hcen allocated to the city of Barrie, reflecting
Provincial ~ru idance on the disaggregation of the Sched-
ule 3 forecast allocation and Growth Plan objectives for
inten~itication.
• This additions l growth is anticipated to be accommo-
dated within the current urban boundary through
additional intensif~icarion. The result is an estimated
c~ai~~iciry population in I~arrie of 185,000 by 2031, which
ai~i~roxi~nates the population should Barrie achieve the
G~~owth Plan target of 40% intensification.i
Again, ht~wcvcr, it must be noted that this allocation to the
cir~ of Ban-ie is undertaken on the assumption of a fixed
urban boundary and solely for the purposes of establishing a
disc iburion of growth for the other communities in Simcoe
Coui ty. Should any adjustments be made to the current
urban boundary, the 2031 population for the city of Barrie
will likely change.
It is estimated from the city of Barrie's 2008 development
charges background study that the 2015 total population would be
approximately 150,000 people, meaning a growth of 35,000 people
to the 2031 population of 185,000. Allocating an additional 10,000
in population is approximately 30% of the growth beyond 2015.
Given that the city of Barrie will achieve full build-out of the urban
land supply at 2015, the ultimate level of intensification as a share of
new uniu would likely be somewhat higher.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 21
19
3. Remaining Growth Is Distributed Based on
Patterns of Market Demand
Taking the two steps of allocating most of the growth
according to existing official plan commitments, and some
additional growth to the city of Barrie, results in the distribu-
tion of approximately 179,200 people, or approximately 80%
of the total growth to be distributed.
The remaining 20% of growth, or approximately 49,200
people, is allocated primarily according to observed patterns
of market demand. Criteria related to the municipal fisc:~l
impacts of growth, servicing capacity or environmental
planning were not considered to a determinative factor for
allocating growth within Simcoe County:
Based on analysis undertaken by Hemson Cf~nsulting
Ltd. it was determined that municipal fiscal impacts of
growth were neutral to only slightly po;i[ivr t~~r e~~mm-
unities in Simcoe County. This is consistent with
analyses undertaken by Hemson Consuitin~; Ltd. in
other southern Ontario juri,dictions.
In other words, gm,~~~i31 is n~~t "required" r~ impr~~~~ .l
community's fiscal p~~~iri~~n, including n<~n-residen~ ~ ~1
growth (i.e. employment lands). As a result, the fiscal
impacts of growth were nor used as a cnt,~r'~a for the
allocation of growth at the County le~~el.'
' A summary of the fiscal analysis and its key findings is
provided in Appendix D. Full details are available in the Report on
the Findings for Review and Discussion by the Municipal Finance
Sub-Committee prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. for the Simcoe
Likewise, ,ervicing capacity was also not considered to
be a dctcrmina~ive factor for the distribution of growth
at the Ce~unry level.
Tt~crc is ~~ r<~ni;e of servicing options and there do not
api~ear to br :m~, unique or abnormal constraints to
providing sen°iLin~~ capacity. ~ Although some more
detailed work will he rc~iti fired to identify the preferred
~~ption, servicing is n~~r used as a criteria for the County-
~a~ide distribution of growth.
similarly, all of the local municipalities have the ability
to pion f~~r new growth in a manner that protects the
em~iromitent and is consistent with the current County
~rccnlands. Any new growth areas will be subject to
>tringent environmental planning and review by the
County, the Province and other agencies.
As a result, the remaining population growth has been
distributed based on pattems of market demand. The distri-
bution is for continued population growth across all commu-
nities in the Simcoe County Area, with a greater concentra-
tion of growth within two geographic areas:
Area Growth Plan in February 2008.
~ For details, see Assessment of Water Supply and
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, undertaken for the County of
Simcoe in August 2007.
HEMSON
Schedule l County Officers CO 08-012
20
• The southern, rapidly urbanizing communities of the
Towns ofBradford-West Gwillimbury, Innisfil and New
Tecumseth, and the Barrie area; and
• The communities within a broader area that is generally
referred to as the "Georgian Triangle Area" -the
Towns of Collingwood and Wasaga Beach and the
Township of Clearview.
The result is shown on the following page, and represents a
reasonable community structure from a market perspective,
and incorporates the views of a wide range of stakeholders
within the context of the overall Growth Plan forecast
allocation of 667,000 people by 2031.
It is worth reiterating that the distribution of population
growth may need to be reconsidered based on further discus-
sion and input from the Province, particularl~~ ,~~ it relates to -
the issue of growth in the separated cities. The citic~ ~~f Barrie
and Orillia are included in this exercise s~~lely fvr the pu~-
poses of distributing growth to the cnmmunirics within
municipal Simcoe Count<~.'
' Details to the distribution of both population and
employment growth are provided in Appendix E.
Page 22
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 23
21
Table 2
Simcoe Area Growth Plan
Distribution of Population Growth, 2006 to 2031
Community 2006 Census 2031 Proposed Population
Total Total Growth
Population PoFxilation 2006-2031
Adjala-Tosorontio 1 1,10(1 14,200 3,100
New Tecumseth 2R.t~0q 49,000 20,200
Bradford-West Gwillimbury ' "~.~ ~ ~~) 49,7 00 24,700
Innisfil 3Z,-100 63,000 32,600
Essa 17,000 22,~~00 5,300
Clearview 14,600 ~ 26,000 11,400
Col I i ngwood 18,000 30,200 12,200
Wasaga Beach 15,600 35,000 19,400
Springwater 18,100 26,500 8,400
Oro-Medonte 20,&00 28,100 7,300
Ramara 9.(300 15,500 5,700
Severn 12, 5 (1ll 20,200 7, 700
Tay 1(7,100 11,300 1,200
Tiny 1 1,200 13,900 2,700
Midland 16,900 19,700 2,800
Penetanguishene '9,700 12,300 2,600
Simcoe County Total 27'_',200 439,500 167,300
City of Barrie 133,500 185,000 51,500
City of Orillia 31,400 41,000 9,600
First Nations 1,500 1,500 -
Total Simcoe County Area 438,b00 667,000 228,400
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2008.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. 2006 Census Total Population is the Census population adjusted upwards to include an approximately 4%
Census under-coverage.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 24
22
B. EMPLOYMENT IS DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING
TO PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL OBJECTIVES
The method for distributing employment growth is similar to
population. The first step is for each community in municipal
Simcoe County to maintain their 2006 share of employment.
The next step is to address the issue of employment growth
in the separated cities, again as determined through Provin-
cial negotiations.
As with population, taking these two steps results in the
distribution of most growth, and in the case of employment
nearly all. The remainder of growth is distributed in accor-
dance with the recommendations of the Employment Land
sub-committee to establish major employment nodes in south
Simcoe, along Highway 400 in the Towns of Br<adf~~rd-West
Gwillimbury and Innisfil.
1. Growth within Municipal Simcoe County Is
Distributed Accordance with Market Shares
As shown in Table 1, the Provincial guidance ~rwided <~n
the disaggregation of the Growth Plan Schedul, 3 forecast
allocates a total of 132,000 jobs to municipal Sin' c ~ ~,. County,
including the First Nations communities:
As with population growth, employment for the First
Nations communities is held constant over the forecast
period. This results in a total of 128,900 jobs to be
distributed within Simcoe County for 2031.
This employment is distributed according to each
community's share of 2006 Census employment, so that
each comri~uniry will have some employment growth
over The i~criod.
2. Growth in the Separated Cities Was Again
Determined Through Provincial Negotiations
r~ca~rding to the Province, rlie 2031 employment figures for
rhr cities cat Barrie and C?fillia are identified as 88,000 and
1,0~?t`, respectively. T'he city of Orillia population is main-
tained ar 41,000. Some additional growth, however, is
allocated to Barrie:
An additional 2,000 jobs are allocated to the city of
Barrie for a total employment of 90,000 jobs in 2031;
and
This reflects Provincial Growth Plan objectives for the
urban growth centres, and maintenance of the 2006
balance of jobs to population in the community.
3. Remaining Growth Is Distributed Based on
Preferred Employment Land Location
The allocation of 132,000 jobs to Simcoe County (including
the First Nations communities), 21,000 jobs to the city of
Orillia and 90,000 jobs to the city of $arrie results in a total
2031 employment of 243,000, or approximately 95°~0 of the
total growth to be allocated.
HEMSQN
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 25
The remaining 11,000, or approximately S% of the growth to
be allocated, is divided between two communities, the Towns
of Bradford-West Gwillimbury and Innisfil:
The allocation of growth to the two southern communi-
ties reflects the recommendation of the Employment
Land sub-committee to establish major employment
nodes along the Highway 400 corridor.
The Employment Land sub-committee also recom-
mended that flexibility be provided for all communities
to take advantage of economic development opportuni-
ties. Maintaining the 2006 share of employment for
each of the local municipalities in Simcoe County i~
consistent with this recommendation.
The result is shown on the following page and reflects local
and County objectives for employment gr~«~rh ~~. i ~ 1 • in the
context of the overall Provincial Grc~~wth Plait f. ~mcast
allocation of 254,000 jobs in 2031.
One of the key issues, however, that h~.~s emcr~red ~a~irh resj~ect
to the overall Growth Plan eni}~I, ~„Z~cnt allr~carion and the
distribution of employment growth within Simcoe Count} is
the issue of employment land, and the challenges in~~<~l~~ed in
protecting key employment land locations F~•r long-term
economic development purposes:
There are good reasons to supi~ort such an economic
development objective, including the Provincial
recognition of the importance of maj~~c highway corri-
dorsand employment land to the competitiveness ofthe
GGH and the benefits of taking a longer view for
employment land planning;
23
In the Simcoe County Area, the most competitive
locations for employment land are along the Highway
400 corridor, including locations in the Towns of
Bradford-West Gwillimbury and Innisfil The Provincial
IGAF' study reached a similar conclusion.l
Ho~~~e~°cr, even with virtually all of the available
"unallocated" }~orrions of employmentgrowthallocated
to these two southern locations, it will be a challenge to
iiui~lement the County's ~~i ion for major employment
nc~desalong the High~~~ay 400 corridor.
Notwithstanding the advantages of planning for em-
pl~>yment land in the Highway 400 corridor, or the
;uirahility of this location for that purpose, the new
I'r~,vincial policy environment makes the justification
of new employment land very difficult. 2
It will be necessary to identify the key employment land
locations in the new County of Simcoe official plan, and
more specifically the recommended nodes in the Towns of
Bradford-West Gwillimbury and Innisfil. Further discussions
with the Province and local municipalities, however, will
likely be required to identify the appropriate land use
planning response for achieving this objective.
' The IGAP study identified a need for additional
employment land in these taco communities.
2 A summary of employment land requirements for the
Simcoe County Area is provided in Appendix F.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 26
24
Table 3
Simcoe Area Growth Plan
Distribution of Employment Growth, 2006 to 2031.
Community 2006 Census 2l)~1 Proposed Employment
Employment Employment Growth
2006-2031
Adjala-Tosorontio 1 ,600 2,100 500
New Tecumseth 1,9,700 ?6,300 6,600
Bradford-West Gwillimbury £x,000 1 h,20t1 8,200
Innisfil 5,~0U 1 ~3,10i1 7,400
Essa ; , 00 10; 300 2,600
Clearview 4,400 ~~ 5,800 1,500
Col I i ngwood 10, 800 14,400 3,600
Wasaga Beach 3,100 4,100 1,000
Springwater 5,000 6,700 1,700
Oro-Medonte 4,700 6,200 1,600
Ramara 1 ,900 2,500 600
Severn 3,<)00 5,300 1,300
Tay 1,500 2,000 500
Tiny 1,400 1,900 500
Midland 12,000 16,000 4,000
Penetanguishene 5,00 7,000 1,800
Simcoe County Total 'x6,400 139,900 43,500
City of Barrie 64,300 90,000 25,700
City of Orillia 19,700 21,000 1,300
First Nations 3,100 3,100 -
Total Simcoe County Area 183,500 254,000 70,500
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2008.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. 2006 Census employment includes usual place of work, work at home and no usual place of work
employment. For each community within the Simcoe County Area, the "no usual place of work" employment has been redistributed in accordance
with their shares of the other two types of employment (usual place of work and work at home).
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 27
25
C. RECREATION-BASED HOUSING SHOULD BE 1. Some Recreation-Based Housing Should Continue
LIMITED TO SPECIFIC LOCATIONS to Be Permitted in Simcoe
The Seasonal, Recreational, Institutional Housing sub-
committeeexamined the issue of recreation-based housing as
part of the growth plan study process. One of the key issues
was the shifting economic and growth environment in the
Simcoe County Area, which was resulting in new pressures
for this type of development.
Most of the existing policies for seasonal or recreation-based
housing were written in the early 1990s, when most growth
outlooks were modest. Much has changed since then,
however, including accelerated growth and an increasingly
constrained land supply in the GTAH and parts of the
Simcoe County Area. As a result, policies re~r_,rding
recreation-based housing are inereasin~,=Iy being Wised 1~~~ the
development community as a means of obrlir.ir.,, a<i,iu~~>nal
approvals, in some cases for rural locations rn~rsidc or s~birt-
ting adesignated settlement area.
Although some recreation-based units may not he occuj~i~ i
year round, from a land use planning perspecti~~~ they have
much of the same implications including tl ~,~ delivery of
services. In response to the need for updated development
controls for recreation-based housing in the current growth
and land use planning context, the following policy direc-
tions are recommended for inclusion in the new County
official plan.
On the m~~zter of whether or not recreation-based housing
should continue to be permitted, it is clear that some of this
type of dcvc I ~~p ~ ~, ~_zt should be allowed in the Simcoe County
Area. There are many sound reasons, including:
• The important role that it plays in the economic base
f~~rrnany communities ~~~ithin the Simcoe County Area.
I~~-20Q~, there wereapproximately 17,000 estimated
units throughout the Simcoe County Area.`
• ~~i~portunities provided by the Growth Plan to accom-
modarc alimited amount of development outside of
designated settlement areas; and
• The recognition that providing opportunities for recre-
ation-based housing in close proximity to the Greater
Toronto Area and Hamilton urban area is an economic
advantage for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
However, given recent trends towards more permanent
occupancy of these types of units, and growing pressure for
their approval outside of designated settlement areas, an
updated policy approach is required.
`For clarity, the term "recreation-based housing" is used to
refer to this type of housing. According to County staff, there are few
truly seasonal units being built in Simcoe, and the term "lifestyle
community" reflects a marketing approach as opposed to a specific
built form. See Appendix G for the estimate of the 2006Census
recreation-based units.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 28
2. Recreation-Based Housing Should Only Be
Permitted in Certain Locations
The need for a new policy approach to recreation-based
housing is driven by a number of factors, including strong
demand, a diminishing distinction between recreation-based
and permanent housing and new Provincial policies that seek
to restrict rural development.
As stated in the 2006 Background Report on the matter
of recreation-based housing, there is strong demand for
recreational housing in Simcoe County. Demand is
being driven mainly by an aging population and strong
economy, which is generating increased wealth anlfi
interest in second homes. '
Given the limited supply of waterfront property,
recreation-based housing is emerging in nc~a~ hunt forms
and new locations, often outside of dcsi~,rnarcd scrtlem-
ent areas around ski resorts and ~>olf courses or in rural
areas that are able to offer a high nanmrl arsthctic and
community amenities.
The distinction bet«~ecn recreation-based and perma-
nent housing is also diminishing. The form of housing=
is changing with a growing market for multi-unit
development, often in the form of the intensification of
the existing shoreline, and man}- units arc being used
year-round.
' See Appendix A for references to the four Background
Reports prepared in 2006.
26
There is a growing tendency for owners of recreation-
based properties to use their second homes throughout
the year. O~ er time, many developments originally
marketed as seasonal, or "lifestyle", become occupied
throughout the year.
As a result, from a land use planning perspective this type of
housing creates much of the same impact as permanent
housing, including the i~r<wision of services such as police
~.~nd fire i~rotection. Althc~u=h many of these units may be
marketed ~~~ non-permanent, from the perspective ofland use
planni n,~ ancj servicing they are much the same as permanent
units.
Given thr ne~~~ Provincial policy directions to achieve more
anni~acr a roan forms and restrict development in rural areas,
it is ~ I~ it that a new approach is required. Accordingly,
future recreation-based development should only be permit-
ted in association with identified natural recreational
attractions and where all of the following conditions are met:
The housing is adjacent to and has good accessibility to
an identified natural recreational attraction;
The housing is not adjacent to or abutting an existing
designated settlement area boundary;
The housing development is of a scale considered
appropriate relative to the scale of the natural recre-
ational attraction;
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 29
• The housing development would not have any negative
impacts on nearby agricultural activities, rural resources
or the rural "aesthetic";
• There would be no negative impacts on the Natural
Heritage System, including hazard lands, water bodies or
water courses or cultural or archaeological resources;
• There would be no negative impacts on existing shore-
line areas;
• The housing development is serviced with full munici-
pal or communal services; and
• There would be no negative fiscal impacts to the
County or local municipality with respect to the cost to
provide and maintain the necessary infrastructure.
The current County planning framework for seasonal
and recreation-based housing should be largely retained
and upd~ltcd ~~=ith strict conditions for approval. It was
the view of the sub-committee that the current policy
fraulc~~~ork was adequate, but needed to be updated to
reflect the current growth pressures.
Tliesuh-committee also recommended that a strategy for
~lft~~rd,rhle and institutional housing be developed as part of
the new County official plan. These recommendations were
appnrved by the Growth Process Steering Committee, with
the rep}ucst that the potential financial implications of any
policies fur affordable housing be carefully considered.
D. DEVELOPMENT OF HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
SHOULD BE A PRIORITY
3. Implementation Should Remain a Local
Responsibility
Given the wide range of locations, tenure type; and huilr
forms for seasonal and r~~cre~uion-based housing, it is vrr}~
difficult to put in plac,~ .in .~:~ea-wide police framc~i~ork r,_~:
recreation-based housing. <A~ ,~ r~•su1t:
The Health and Lifestyles sub-committee addressed the issue
of the need for new policies to promote healthy communities,
accessible health care and community services. Two main
recommendations were made:
A site-by-site approach is preferred, with im}~lementa-
tion remaining a local municipal responsibility within
an overall County framework, including the recom-
mended conditions for approval; and
27
hocal municipalities need to take actions to improve the
built environment by promoting complete community
development, supporting transit development and
reducing urban sprawl; and
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 30
28
• The County and other agencies, such as the Conserva-
tion Authorities, need to take actions to improve the
delivery of County-wide services, including access to
health care, active transportation systems as well as the
protection of greenspace. ~
1. Growth Plan Density and Intensification Targets
Should Be Applied to the Larger and Older Urban
Areas in Simcoe
As noted ~~~~-licr, under the Provincial Growth Plan specific
inter.-, (' ,_ , ~ i , ~ m uid density targets are to be achieved:
Both sets of recommendations should be incorporated in the
new official plan. Of the two, however, it is the recom-
mended local municipal initiatives that have the most
significant planning implications as they relate to the built
environment and the form of development. The major tool
at the County level to influence the form of the built
environment is density and intensification targets.
In order to achieve the built form objectives associated with
building healthy communities, it is recommended that the
Growth Plan density and intensification rarccts he ~~i~plicd to
the older and more urban communities in Sini~<~e C~~unry to
promote a more compact urban form. The other sm~iller and
more rural settlement areas in Simcoe Ccninty .should rer,ain
their small-town character.
`For detail, see a report on the impacts of built form on the
health of the population, prepared by the Simcoe Muskoka District
Health Unit and other materials provided by the North Simcoe
Muskoka Local Health Integration Network. FuU references are
provided in Appendix A.
• :A minimum -10"4~ of all residential units must be accom-
modated within rlic built-up area after 2015; and
• Ne~~~ ~eenfield development must achieve a density of
~0 residents and jobs combined per ha.
Acconlingi~~, in order to implement the recommendations of
the Health and Lifestyles sub-committee to improve the built
em~irnnment through more compact urban form, the Growth
flan u~~~~~ity and intensification targets should be applied to
the larger settlement areas and older and more urban commu-
nities. This includes:
• The Town of New Tecumseth;
• The Town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury;
• The Town of Innisfil;
• The Town of Collingwood;
• The Town of Penetanguishene; and
• The Town of Midland.2
~ The Town of Wasaga Beach was not included because it
is a relatively new community as compared to a community such as
the Town of Collingwood. It Lacks a distinct central core and as a
result is likely to continue to develop with a less urban character over
time.
HEMSON
Schedule I County Officers CO 08-012 Page 31
For communities within Simcoe County, these targets
represent a much more compact urban form than is currently
being built. Analysis undertaken by Hemson Consulting Ltd
as part of the study process indicates that the current density
of new residential communities is a maximum of 36 jobs and
residents per ha.'
2. Small-Town Character of the Rural Locations
Should Be Maintained
Simcoe County has several municipalities where the majority
of population is contained in urban communities, where the
urban-type levels ofdensity and intensification anticipated bj-
the Growth Plan may be warranted. There are other munici-
palities, however, that are rural in nature where this may not
be appropriate:
• There are several rural municipalities in Sinuue C: nznty
where denser, urban-type de~~el~~pmcnr wcn~l~1 be
physically unsuitable and inconsistent ~~°ith the
small-town character of these locations.
One of the key themes arising out of the i~uhlic me~r-
ings and the forum-for organized interests was nc~ n~ c.i
for the County to maintain the charac i ~ r and rural
aesthetic of small towns.
' The current Growth Plan density in iiew residential
communities in Simcoe County is estimated to 1~e only 36 residents
and jobs per ha. Details of this estimate are provided in Appendix H.
Including the land-extensive employment areas would reduces the
overall density to about 30 residents and jobs combined per ha, which
is significantly below the Provincial target
29
Seeking to accommodate very dense, urban-type forms
in the smaller rural communities may also undermine
other Groetrth Plan objectives for the Simcoe County
Area by reducing the amount of this type of developm-
ent that would occur in other locations, including the
~arric urban growth centre.
• Fnnn~_>ting transit use, for example, is an objective that
is better achieved in the larger, more urban settlement
areas than in small towns. The types of built forms that
hest s~~Pport transit -mainly apartments and major
office uses - should be concentrated in locations where
This type of development may already exist, or where
rr~msit infrastructure is already in place.
3. The Result Will Be Slightly Lower Aggregate
Density and Intensification Targets
The recommended approach to setting the density and
intensification targets is therefore as follows:
The Growth Plan density target of 50 residents and jobs
combined per ha should be applied to the six larger and
older urban areas in Simcoe County: the Town of New
Tecumseth; the Town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury;
the Town of Innisfil; the Town of Collingwood; the
Town of Penetanguishene; and the Town of Midland;
and
The Growth Plan intensification target of 40% of new
residential units after 2015 should also be applied to
these six larger and urban areas.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 32
30
The remaining communities in Simcoe County would be
subject to lower targets, consistent with the currently
observed pattern of development.
As a result of this approach, the overall County-wide density
and intensification targets will be somewhat lower than the
Provincially-mandated 50 residents and jobs combined per ha
and 40% intensification. This is consistent with Growth Plan
policies that contemplate the setting of alternative targets in
such circumstances:
• Section 2.2.3.4 indicates that the Minister may review
and permit an alternative intensification target for an
upper-tier municipality in the Outer Ring; and
These are considered reasonable goals for the new County
official plan, recognizing that specific local density and
intensification r~ir,~~ets will need to be confirmed through the
local municii~al conformity exercises. A summary of the
estimutc, ~,f the a~>tiregate County-wide density and intensifi-
cnti~m targets i~ ~~r~:~~ ided in Appendix I.
The neat chapter rums to a discussion of this issue as well as
other irri~lrmentation issues s~ich as the role that the County,
the l~~c~~1 municipalities and the Province will need to play in
ensuring= that the Provincial and County visions for the
future are achieved.
• Section 2.2.7.5 indicates that the Minister may review
and permit an alternative density target for an upper-
tier municipality in the Outer Ring.
Accordingly, the following targets are rea~rnmcn~lca f~~j the
new County of Simcoe official plan:
• An aggregate density turi;rr ~~f approainr<~tc1y 40 resi-
dents and jobs combined i~er ha is c~msidere~l a reas~~n-
able goal for new rcenfield development; , , ~~~
• An aggregate target ofaphrc~aimately 30°<~ intensifica-
tion within existing built-u~~ are<~s is also c~~nsidered a
reasonable goal for municipal Sirncue County.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 33
31
IV GROWTH PLAN NOW NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNCIL AND
INCORPORATED INTO A NEW OFFICIAL PLAN __
In order to move the growth management process forward,
the County of Simcoe Council will need to approve the
Simcoe Area Growth Plan which will be implemented
through the new County official plan. Local municipalities
will need to conform to the County's new plan, particularly
in the form of planning to achieve the population and
employment forecasts and the density and intensification-
targets.
Consistent with the current role of County planning, the
detailed planning associated with the growth. forec~~sts and
density and intensification targets should rcnr~iin a local
municipal responsibility within an ~~~-cratt C~ninr~~ p~~licy
framework. The key issues that will need to he addressed are-:
the location and amount of employment land; }~olicicti f~~r
recreation-based housing and other policies re~Yarding the
development of healthy communities.
Finally, it is also clear, based on the wine range of ~i~ws about
the future of Simcoe County, that the Pro. incc ~~,ill need to
be a partner in implementation. It is the c~pcctation of the
County and its partners that the Province will support and
defend the Simcoe Area Growth Plan, should challenges to
the new County official plan be made.
A. GROWTH PLAN WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
THROUGH THE NEW OFFICIAL PLAN
Ir is ~-orth reiterating that the Simcoe Area Growth Plan is
n~~r a drt<iiled land use plan. It is a strategic-level document
that will prnvide guidance to the new official plan, along
wirh the Transportation Master Plan and Natural Heritage
System Update. The Simcoe Area Growth Plan will be
implemented through the new County official plan and
s~d~sequent local conformity exercises.
1. Council Needs to Approve This Document As
Input to the New Official Plan
In order to implement the Simcoe Area Growth Plan,
County Council needs to approve this document as a
foundation study for the new official plan, which will be
circulated for public review and comment, including review
by the local municipalities and the Province. The new
County official plan requires approval by the Province before
it is legally effective.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012
32
2. New Official Plan Will Be the Main Tool for B. DETAILED PLANNING WILL BE A LOCAL
Implementation MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY
Following this review, changes will be made as appropriate,
and the document will be forwarded to County Council for
approval. Following County Council approval, the Simcoe
Area Growth Plan can be implemented through the new
County official plan, including population and employment
forecasts, density and intensification targets and other
policies to guide growth.
3. Local Municipalities Need to Commence
Conformity Exercises
Following the adoption of the Simcoe Are Growth Plan,
local municipalities should commence their official plan
conformity exercises. Local municipal plans, howe~-er, cannot
be adopted or approved until the County's nc~~~ official plan
is adopted and approved by the Province. Local municipal
plans will need to conform to the key gnn.-th mana,~enunt
principles of the new official plan, spccificall~~:
The population and elilpl~~yment fi»reast~; and
The density and intensification targets.
Many municipalities have already a~mmenced kcal official
plan processes, including growth managcnuunt studies and
other studies. It is anticipated that the C<~unty will work with
local municipalities to develop the targets in a manner that
ensures the overall Growth Plan objective to promote com-
pact urban forms is achieved.
Page 34
Within the ~~~ erall County official plan framework, local
municipal itic~ «•il1 be responsible for detailed planning. This
inclu~3es planning for employment land, policies for
recreariun-based housing and other policies to promote
healthy community deg=elc~pment.
1. Towns`of Bradford and Innisfil Should
Recommend Employment Nodes
In order try impleient the recommendation that employment
nodes he esr,.~blished in the Highway 400 corridor, more
detailed land use planning will need to undertaken:
• The Towns of Bradford-West Gwillimbury and Innisfil
should recommend the amount and preferred location
in the identified nodes as part of their local official plan
conformity exercise; and
The extent and configuration of the employment areas
should be determined by County planning staff in
consultation with local municipalities.
Discussion with the Province may be required to implement
the official plan amendments for the employment nodes in
the new local and County official plans. Options may
include planning for a longer time frame, "special policy"
areas in the Highway 400 corridor or other methods to
ensure the long-term protection for key employment land
locations.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012
33
2. Policies for Recreation-Based Housing Will Need C. PROVINCE NEEDS TO BE A PARTNER IN
to Be Developed IMPLEMENTATION
The local municipalities will also be responsible for the
specific implementation of County policies for recreation-
based housing. Local municipalities will need to implement
detailed plans for this type of development, including:
• The definition of recreation-based housing for local
planning purposes;
• Criteria for approval within the overall County policy
framework;
• Relation to density and intensification targets; and
• Others, as required.
3. Priorities for Healthy Communities Will Nced to
Be Reflected in Local Plans
In addition to the density and intensification targets, Local
municipalities will need r> conform to other direcri~_ms f<~r
the development of healthy communities th~~~r nre recom-
mended for inclusion in the nc~w official plan, including
initiatives related to complete ,_onununity development,
increased density, mixed-used development and more
walkable comminutes.'
' The full list of recommendations, as amended by the
Growth Process Steering Committee, is available on the County's
growth plan website: www.growth.simcoe.ca.
Page 35
As the County- and its partners proceed with implementing
this vision for the future, it is clear that assistance and tools
fi-~>in the Province will be required. Currently, pressure for
~rrr~wth beyond current pl armed commitments is a major issue
and it is reasonable to anticipate that challenges will be made
to the CoirnXy's new official plan. Provincial support will be
required to implement the new official plan, particularly as it
relates to potential appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board,
or other actions taken in an effort to achieve an alternative
seI Of ~ri?~~'th ~)bjeCClVeS.
The Simcoe County Area is expected to accommodate
significant growth over the next 25 years. To plan for that
growth in a manner that best serves the long-term interests
of the community, the County of Simcoe has prepared a
growth management strategy that is called the Simcoe Area
Growth Plan.
HEMSON
Schedule I County OfFcers CO 08-012
34
The Simcoe Area Growth Plan was prepared in the context
of new Provincial polices that seek to promote more compact
and efficient communities and put greater emphasis on the
intensification of existing urban areas over continuous
expansion into greenfield areas.
In the context of these objectives, the Simcoe Area Growth
Plan defines the location and character of new community
development. It was prepared through consultation with a
wide range of decision-makers and interested stakeholders
including the public, organized interest groups and the.
development community.
It is indeed a significant achievement to have developed a
common vision for the Simcoe County Area. within such a
challenging decision-making environment. It ~.~oul~~ n~~t have
been possible without the commitment of the Cr~~wth
Management Steering Committee, the ~~ru«~ch prc,cess sub-
committees, the Warden, senior,managc~l~ent, an~3 i~~cmher;
of the County of Simcoe ~laFining staff and the 1~,c~~f munici-
palities.
Page 36
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 37
35
APPENDICES
A. Bibliography of Growth Management Studies
B. List of Committee Members
C. Provincial Letter on Growth Plan Forecasts For Barrie and Orillia
D. Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis
E. Details on the Distribution of Population and Employment Growth
F. Estimate of Long-Range Employment Land Requirements
G. Estimate of Seasonal and Recreation-Based Housing Units
H. Estimate of Growth Plan Density in New Residential Communities
L Estimate of County-wide Density and Intensification Targets
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 38
APPENDIX A
Bibliography of Growth Management Studies
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 39
SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ainsley & Associates Limited. The County of Simcoe Growth Management Study:
Assessment of Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. August 2007.
Health & Lifestyles Sub-Committee. North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN Strategic Directions
and Goals.
Hemson Consulting Ltd. Simcoe County Growth Plan. Summary of Community
Consultation October and November 2007.
Hemson Consulting Ltd. Simcoe Area Growth Plan: Rehorr on the Findings for Review and
Discussion by the Municipal Finance Sub-Committee. Fehruary 2008.
Hemson Consulting Ltd. Population, Households ~~ Ernploy~n~nt Forecasts L~t~_fate: Final
Report. May 2004.
Hemson Consulting Ltd. Directions E;~°~~~>>t: Developingu i ~r~,i~thManagementStrategy for
the Simcoe County Area: Working Document for Rei-i~u h.~ ~h~~ growth Management
Steering Committee. September 2007.
Hemson Consultin; Ltd. County of SimcoeSub-Committee Meetings Discussion Papers .
June 2006:
Growth Management Stt-ateg}: Fro~~incial Policies SubcommitteeDiscussionPaper
for Initial St.~bcommittee Mcetiiig. June 1, 2006.
Gr~>wth Management ~ r r . ~ i ~~ ~~5': Housing Choices Subcommittee. Discussion Paper
fir Initial Subcommittee ,~1 ~e~i~ig. June 1, 2006.
Growth Management Strategy: Municipal Services Subcommitte~liscussion Paper
for Initial Suhco~n~nittee Meeting. June 8, 2006.
Growth Management Strategy: Hard Services Subcommittee. Preliminary Findings
of the Hard Services Subcommittee: Delivery of Water ~ Wastewater Services. August
18, 2006.
SHS Inc.HousingNeeds Assessment and Recommendations on Policies and Programs: Draft:
Housing Needs Assessment (Part I ).November 15, 2006.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-412 Page 40
2
The work and various reports prepared as part of the Provincial Intergovernmental Action
Plan (IGAP) Study Process:
Dillon Consulting. Intergovernmental Action Plan for Simcoe, Barrie and Orillia:
Existing Capacities Assessment SWOT Analysis. July 2006.
Dillon Consulting. Intergovernmental Action Plan for Simcoe, Bame and Orillia:
Growth Potential Assessment Report. August 2006.
Dillon Consulting. Intergovernmental Action Plan for Simcoe, Barrie and Orillia:
Existing Capacities Assessment Demographic, Housing andF.m[~loyment Trends in
Barrie, Orillia and Simcoe County. June 2006.
Dillon Consulting. Intergovernmental Action Plan fur Simcoe, Barrie and Orillia:
Implementation Assessment Report. Augu,~r 2006.
Greenland International Consulting Ltd. Assi~nilatit~e Capacity Studies: CANWET
Modeling Project Lake Simcoe and Nnttawasaga Ri~~er Basins: Final Report 22 February
2006 updated 26 April 2006.
Lake Simcoe Region Conservatism Authority grid Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Atrtl7ori t~ .Assimilative Capacity Studies for the Lake Simcoe Watershed
and Nottawasa~aRivc~~: Executive Sumrruzry. July 2006.
SNC Lavalin. i~Inttau~c~ssngci I3ay Mixing done Model. April 2006.
Stantec C~~nsultin~ Ltd. Benthic ~'~lcuro-invertebrate Sampling and Analysis of Lake
Sinuoe: Final Repo~~t. March Z000~.
The L~~tiis Berger Group Inc. Pollutant Target Load Study: Lake Simcoe and
Nottav,~usa,~~a River Watersheds. June 2006.
W. F. Baird Sz Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. and Gartner Lee Limited. Lake
Simcoe Hydrodynamic and Water duality Model. May 2006.
Williams, M. and Wright, M. The Impact of the Built Environment on the Health of the
Population: A Review of the Review Literature. Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit,
2007.
HEMSON
Schedule 1
County Officers CO 08-012
APPENDIX B
List of Committee Members
Page 41
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 0$-012 Page 42 _
SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
The preparation of the Simcoe Area Growth Plan was directed by a committee of
elected officials called the Growth Process Steering Committee. The Growth Process
Steering Committee also established five growth process sub-committees, made up of
staff and elected officials, to address the key growth management issues. The members
of these committees is shown below.
The terms of reference for the Growth Process Steering Conuni tree a ndsub-committees
are shown following the list of committee members.
Members of The Growth Process Steering Committee
Warden Tony Guergis
Councillor Doug Little
Councillor Peggy Breckenridge
Councillor Sandra Cooper
Councillor Brian Jacks~,i1
Councillor H~ury Hu~hcs
Councillor Mike i~~lacEachern
Councillor Cal Patterson
Past Warden hennis lioughley
Councillor Alicia Savage
Mayor Ron Stevens, City of Orillia
Two representatives from the City of Barrie
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 43
Members of The Five Growth Process Sub-Committees
1. The Health and Lifestyles sub-committee
Elected Officials:
Rick Archdekin, Councillor, Town of Wasaga Beach
George Cornell, Councillor, Township of Tiny
Jim Downer, Councillor, County of Simcoe
Anita Dubeau, Councillor, County of Simcoe
Dennis Roughley, Councillor, County of Simcoe
Tony Guergis, Warden, County of Simcoe
Staff:
Shawn Binns, Manager of Recreation and C~~tnmtt~ity Service
Township of Oro-Medonte
Peter Dunbar, Director ofLeisure Services, Town of Collingwood
Jane Sinclair, General Manager, Health and Cultural services,
County of Simcoe
Carol Trainor, Clerk-Deputy Treasurer, Township of Essa
2. Municipal Finance sub-committee
Elected Officials:
Terry Allison, C~~uncillor, Township of Oro-Medonte
Huhn Crispo, Councilh~r, Township of Clearview
Doug Leroux, Councillor, County of Simcoe
Phil Sled, Councillor, County of Simcoe
Stan Wells, Councillor, Town of Wasaga Beach
Tony Guer~is,"Warden, County of Simcoe
Staff:
Jeffrey Brydges, Deputy Treasurer, Township of Clearview
Tom Evans, General Manager, Finance and Administration,
County of Simcoe
Sue Gignac, Treasurer, Town of Midland
Marjory Leonard, Director of Treasury Services, Town of Collingwood
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 44
3. Community Structure Sub-committee
Elected Officials:
Sandy Agnew, Councillor, Township of Oro-Medonte
Basil Clarke, Councillor, County of Simcoe
Del Crake, Councillor, Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury
Thom Paterson, Councillor, Township of Clearvie~~~ a
Cal Patterson, Councillor, County of Simcoe
Tony Guergis, Warden, County of Simcoe
Staff:
Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer, C~ninty of Simcoe
Gerry Caterer, Director of Planning, T~~~~-~lship ~~f Adjala-Tosorc~utio
Geoff McKnight, Director of Planning, Tcnvnof Bradford West Gwillimbury
David Parks, Director of Manning and Devel~~i~iuent, Township of Sevem
4. Employment Land Sub-committee
Elected Officials:
Joe Fecht, Crnzncill~ir, City of Orillia
Tc?n~~ Ht~~e, C~~uncillr~r, C<~unty~ ~~f Simcoe
Je;; Prother~>, C~u~ncill~~r, Tu~~~n of New Tecumseth
Gard W~uchc~pe, C<wncillur, County of Simcoe
Doug White, Cr~uncillc~r, County of Simcoe
Tuny Guergis, Warden, County of Simcoe
Staff:
Andrew Fvfc, Director of Planning, Township of Springwater
Bryan MacKell, Planner, Town of Midland
Gayla McDonald, Clerk/Manager of Administration, Town of New Tecumseth
Rick Newlove, General Manager, Corporate Services, County of Simcoe
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 45
4
5. Seasonal, Recreational, Institutional Housing Sub-committee
Elected Officials:
Kim Anderson, Councillor, Township of Springwater
Nina Bifolchi, Councillor, Town of Wasaga Beach
Judith Cox, Councillor, County of Simcoe
Anne Murphy, Councillor, Town of Penetanguishene
Nigel Warren, Councillor, Township of Tiny
Tony Guergis, Warden, County of Simcoe
Staff:
Richard Bates, Chief Administrative Officer, Township of Ramara
Ian Bender, Director of Planning, County of Simcoe
Robert Browne, Manager, Parks and hecre~~tir~n, Town of Innis~il
Ray Kelso, Manager of Planning and Development, Town of Wasaga Beach
These five sub-committees met on n~imerous occasions throu~~h the fall of 2007 and
early 2008, and submitted recommendations to nc~Growth Process Steering Committee
in March 2008. With some rn inor changesan~amendments,the recommendations were
approved as a basis for the draft Simcoe Area Growth Plan. The specific terms of
reference are pru~~ided un the fallowing pages.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 46
COUNTY OF SIMCOE GROWTH PROCESS STEERING COMMITTEE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Approved by County Council March 27, 2007
Purpose /Objectives
To oversee the Growth Management Process, as outlined by the Process Outline and the pending
Growth Management Directions Report. This includes the striking of appropriate working groups
or sub-committees, and providing overall guidance to the process of developing Growth
Management plans and policies (which will become part of the County Official Plan) to guide
growth for the Simcoe County area.
Responsibilities
The responsibilities of the Oversight Committee shall be to;
1. Guide the Growth Management Process
2. Provide recommendations to Council
3. Strike appropriate sub-committees and workshops to assist in the process, including a
Technical Committee consisting of staff from the County, local municipalities, and the Cities
of Barrie and Orillia to provide research and technical support to the Oversight Committee
4. Liase with various partners in the process to facilitate iurlusiveness and communication
5. Maintain timelines and deliverables throughout the. process
Composition
The Committee shall be comprised of 9 members of County Council (representation to be
determined by the Corporate Services Committee), 2 representatives from the City of Barrie and a
representative of the Citv of Orillia, a~~d the Warden as an ex-officio member.
Chair/Vice Chair
The Committee shall at its first meeting select one of its members to be Chair and one member to
be Vice-Chair.
Remuneration
The Steering Committee members shall be compensated in accordance with County Policy.
Reporting
The Steering Committee shall report to County Council through the Corporate Services
Committee.
Meeting Schedule
Meetings will be called by the Chair as required throughout the Process to address matters as they
arise.
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 47
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
SUB-COMMITTEES FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Purpose/Objectives
To make recommendations to the County of Simcoe Growth Process Steering Committee
with respect to specific items related to the Growth Management Process.
Responsibilities
The following sub-committees are established and the responsibilities for each are as
follows; ..
1. The Health and Lifestyles sub-committee shall review and submit~iecommendations
that support the creation of, and identify future strategies for healthy communities,
accessible health care and community services.
2. The Municipal Finance sub-committee will determine whether or not growth is
required to improve the community's financial position, or provides other bc~~efits
such as a greater level of community, economic opportunity or others.
3. The Community Structure sub-committee shall recommend a distribution of the
Provincial Growth Plan population and employment forecasts to the lower-tier
municipalities and the density and intensification targets for future development.
4. The Employment Land sub-committee ~~~ill recommend die amount and preferred
location of employment land in the Simcoe County area, including a consideration of
tourism-related activities.
5. The Seasonal, Recreational, Institutional Housing sub-committee will identify the
role that lifestyle and recreation-based housing will play in accommodating demand
for housing and recommend policies for future development.
Composition
Each sub-committee shall be composed of the Warden of Simcoe County, a total of five
elected official members of either the County of Simcoe, the Cities of Barrie and Orillia
or the member municipalities and a maximum of four staff members. (Maximum of 10
members)
In addition, external appointees to sub-committees may be made as deemed necessary.
Chair/Vice Chair
The Committee shall at its first meeting in each year elect one of its members to be Chair
and one member to be Vice-Chair.
Remuneration
Members shall be compensated in accordance with County Policy.
Schedule 1 County Officers CO Og-012 Page 48
Reporting
Each sub-committee shall report to the Growth Process Steering Committee, which
reports to the Corporate Services Committee.
Meeting schedule
Each sub-committee will meet at the call of the Chair with the frequency to be
established by the sub-committee.
August 2s, aoo~
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 49
APPENDIX C
Provincial Letter on Growth Plan Forecasts For Barrie and Orillia
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 50
Ministry of Pubtic
Infrastructure f2enewal
Ontario Cntawth Scti:retariat
777 Bay St 4th Flr
Taranto ON MSG 2E5
telc-phone 7i~11 Free: I -8(i6-079-9781
Fax Nmnbcr. (416} 325-740?
Mrnisti*re du Renouvellement de
i'infrastructure publique
S~:rckariat des initiatives de emi4sance de
1'Ontari^
777, rue Bay 4` etage
1'uronto ON MSG ZES
7elctpht~ne(sancfrais): )-866-~i79.91$l
Telc~cnpieuc 1416) 325-74(?3
Q Ontario
January 16, 2008
Mr. Mark Aitken
Chief Administrative Officer
County of Simcoe
Administration Centre
1110 Highway 26
Midhurst, ON LOL 1 XO
Mr. Son Babulic
Chief Administrative Officer
City of Barrie
20 Collier Street
Barrie, ON L4M 4T5
Mr. Ian Brown
City Manager
City of Oriliia
SO Andrew Street South
Orillia, ON L3V 7T5
Dear Messrs Aitken, Babulic, Brown:
1 am writing to provide an update on the work to disaggregate the population and employment
forecasts found in Schedule 3 of the Growth Pian for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2405. This is an
important element for municipalities to proceed with bringing their official plans into conformit;~ with
the Growth Plan. This work was convened by the Provincial Development Facilitator beginning in
FaII 2005 and over the past year has involved members of your staff, as well as staff from the
Ministries of Public Infrastructure Renewal and Municipal Affairs and Housing.
As you are aware, this process has been happening as parallel negotiations on land and senricing
arrangements have been underway involving the City of Barrie, the Town of Innisfil, and the County
of Simcoe. While these discussions remain on-going, there is, at the same time, an urgency for
municipalities to proceed with their planning processes. For that purpose, each municipality requires
same clarity with regard to the Schedule 3 forecasts. This letter is intended to provide that clarity. I
also understand that the Provincial Development Facilitator will be tabling a recommendation in the
near future regarding the parallel negotiations.
.. ,/2
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 51
_~_
Based on the input gained through the facilitated sessions with municipal and provincial participants,
the Ontario Growth Secretariat has determined the Schedule 3 disaggregation shown on the chart
belpw. The amount indicated as "unallocated growth" will be assigned following the conclusion of
discussions that the Provincial Development Facilitator is leading on land and servicing with the
affected jurisdictions. 1f the land and servicing discussions do not result in changes to municipal
boundaries, the unallocated growth will be allocated based on existing municipal boundaries. In the
meantime, while these processes unfold, I would encourage the Cities and the County to continue with
ongoing planning work based on the numbers provided here to ensure conformity with the Growth
Plan f'ar the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Distribution of Population and Employment far Simcoe County, Barrie and Orillia
Figures in chart in (000's}
001 011 021 031
o elation
imcoe County 54 94 70 Ob
ity of Barrie I08 157 176 180
ity of Orillia 0 3 7 2
nallocated Growth 0
e ated Forecasts 92 84 5$3 b?
Em to went
Simcoe County $5 102 125 132
ity of Barrie 3 7 6 8
ity of Orillia 16 17 19 1
nallocated Growth 13
e ated Forecasts 154 196 30 54
In terms of next steps, once the disaggregation work is complete in all affected municipalities across
the Greater Golden Horseshoe, PIR will be in a position to proceed with a proposed amendment to
Schedule 3. Any amendment must be undertaken in a manner consistent with the process prescribed
in the Places to Grow Act, 2005.
Thank you again far your timely input and your invaIvernent in the process. I look forward to
working with you as we continue to implement the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Yours sincerely,
A
ra Gra
ssistant Deputy Minister
Ontario Growth Secretariat
Ce: Alan Wells, Provincial Development Facilitator
Liz McLaren, Assistant Deputy Minister, Municipal Services Division, MAH
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 52
APPENDIX D
Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis
HEMSON
County Officers CO 08-012 Page 53
SIMCOE AREA
GROWTH PLAN
Report on the Findings for
Review and Discussion by the
Municipal Finance Sub-Committee
HEMSON consulting Ltd.
February 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 54
TABLE O F C O N TE[V TS
Paae
I IN TRO D U C TID N .............................................. 1
A. THE SUB~OMMZTTEESOFTHESMCOECOUNTY
GROWTH M AN AG EM EN T PRO C ESS ............................ 2
B. COMPOSIPIDN OFTHEMUN~IPALFNANCESUPfiOTfIMIITEE .....3
C. W O RKPLAN O F TH E M U N N IPAL FN AN C E SU b -E 0 PSI M IPTEE ........ 3
D. FNDNGSOFTHEMUNNIPALFNANCESUB~OMT~II7'TEE .........4
IL FI5CAL5`PATEOFTHECOUNTYOFSIMCOI' .........................6
A. BASNMUNNIPALFNANCETERMNOL~~GY . ....................6
B. A SSESSM E[~I T AN D PRO PERTY TAXA`I'~ N ~I S]M C O E C O U N TY ...... 7
III THEANALYSED GROWTH SCI~JARIDSARECONSIb`TEI~ITW 1:I'H
TH E TYPE O F G RO W TH AN T1C' LPATED IN SIM C O E C O U N TY ........... 17
A. FO UR RESIDENT]ALGRO W ~l'H ~'L'D7Ai~D S O F VARY7[~TG
D EN SIPIES H AVE BEEBt EXAM JN E~ ....... ................... 17
B. TW 0 TYPES 0 F N 0 N ~ESID EN TIAL G RO W TH AND VARYN G
D E~ SII'1ES H A V E BF.ECI EXAM N LD ............................ 19
N FISCALIMPACTANALYS:LSAPPROACH AMID METHODOLOGY .........21
A . ~1vi 0 D IL'IED AVERAG E C O ST APPRO ACH Z5 APPRO PRIATE FO R
TH E FL9C A L ~~i PA C T O F D EV ELO PM Et~1 T ........................ 21
B. CO ST /REVFd7UEALLC>CAT~N METHODS ......................23
C . R.L'~TEN U ES W JL~I~ LARD ELY BE D ERISIED FROM PRO PERTY TAXAT%~ N . 25
D . Z,AX ELATE AND TAXES PAYABLE M PACT ....................... 27
E. O V 1~LV lELO O F TH E RESID E[V TIAL SC EN ARD RESU LTS ............. 2 9
F. OVERVI~~rT OF`I'HENON-RESIDENTIALSCENARA RESCTLTS ........40
V FISCAL IM PACT ANALYSIS RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS ................ 49
A . D EV ELO PM EN T C H ARG ES : D 0 E5 G RO W TH PAY Fib R G RO W TH ? .... 5 0
B. RESIDEDITIALDEVETAPMENTF75CALMPACTS ..................51
C . NON -RESID E[Q TAL D EVELO PM EN T FISCAL ~I PACTS .............. 53
D. D15CUSSDN OFFNDNGS .................................. 55
E. CONCLUSDNS ........................................... 60
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 55
'I'F~C H N IC A L A PPEN D IC ES (U nder Separate C over)
A . Final ~n pactAna~sis As~un puns
B . Resident~alD eve7opm entScenar~s
C . Non-Resa~ent~alD evebpm entScenaraos
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO OS-012 Page 56 _
V FISCAL IM PAC T AN ALYSZS RESU LTS & KEY FINDING S
Before discussing the results, it warrants restating that these results should be considered
primarily for comparative information rather than as accurate predictions of what will
occur in the future. The main objective of the fiscal analysis undertaken in this study
is the examination of the comparative fiscal impact of alternative growth scenarios as
compared to a detailed long-term fiscal impact analysis of a municipality that would
consider both growth- and non-growth-related impacts. ~~
This analysis has held constant, for comparative analysis ~~~ ~ roses, a n umber of variables
that are likely to change over time, for example:.: ~`
• All values (expenditures, revenues and assessnlenr v,llues) are held. constant in
2006$ with no adjustment for inflation. Inflation will occur and result in a fiscal
impact to the municipalities h~_rt this impact will occur in any event. In a
comparative analysis, not adjusting for inflation allows for an equitable evaluation
of the results.
• Existing service delivery responsibility and service levels are maintained. The
service lever incorporated into theanah~sis are effectively based on those that form
the basis of each panic a lar municipality's L)cvelopment Charges Background Study
and current: service delivery pr~icrices. These service levels are consistent with the
historical ser~-ice Levels and the analysis is not based on significant changes. Over
time, a particular municipality may be required to provide a different mix of
services than it does today ur may choose, or be required, to provide services at a
different level or quality. These types of changes have a fiscal impact to the
municipality bur are not directly related to growth or different levels and types of
growth.
• The issue of long-term maintenance, repair and replacement of infrastructure and
facilities is a growing fiscal concern for most municipalities. Many municipalities
in the County have begun to make provisions for asset management but will likely
be required to do more over the coming years regardless of the level or location of
growth. Growth will contribute to this issue both by providing an expanded
assessment base to fund the asset management reserve requirement and by requiring
additions to municipal infrastructure and facilities to meet the service needs of the
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 57
new residents and employees that will require additional reserve contribution
needs. Evidence in other jurisdictions suggests growth municipalities that establish
a long-term asset management plan are better positioned to deal with fiscal
requirements than slow or no-growth municipalities. This fiscal analysis does not
include additional asset management contributions beyond current practices.
A. DEVELOPMENTCHARGES:DOESGROW TH PAY FOR GROWTH?
An important consideration when analysing the fiscal impact of growth is the funding
of the initial capital costs associated with expanding infrastn~cture to meetthe servicing
needs of development. All municipalities in the County, and the C ~~ nznty itself, levy
development charges to fund municipal infrastructure. However, tL~.~r~ are shortfalls:
• Growth does not fully pay for growth. As withr~,11 municipalities in the
Province, under the current DCA, new de~~elopment does not fully pay for the
initial capital costs associated with expanding infrastructure to meet the
servicing needs of new development.
• The DCA-legislated exemptions f~~rcertain services and the historical service
level funding cap are the two largest factors that impact a municipality's ability
to fund gro«~th-related capital withul.it negatively impacting the existing tax
payers. The services nwst adversely effected are the `soft' services of Indoor
Recreation and the Librar} I3o~lyd. In addition, these services are largely driven
by residential gr~n~~th and,, therefore, under the development charges are
mostly funded by residential growth.
• The fiscal impact analysis has captured the cost ofthe 10% legislated discounts
but there are ether development charges funding shortfalls that have not been
quantifies.
• In many municipalities, current development charges rates are not fully
recovering all eligible growth-related costs. Many municipalities in Ontario
are currently updating development charges rates, in advance of the expiry of
the existing by-laws, as the development charges inflation indexing has not
kept pace with the actual increase in construction costs.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 58
• Many municipalities in Simcoe County provide a reduced development
charges rate or exemption for all or some forms of non-residential
development. The reductions or exemptions result in a development revenue
shortfall that must be funded from other municipal revenue sources, most
notably utility rates and property taxes.
B . RESID EN TIAL D EVII~O PM ET7 T FISCAL IM PACTS
Table 24 provides a summary overview of the fiscal impact results of the four residential
development scenarios. The results can be summarized as fuLl~~ws:
Townships
• Generally, the Townships are negatively in~~~acrc~~ by residential growth and
will experience an upward pressure on tax rate,.
• More dense development,' froiiz an operating imi~act analysis, increases the
level of negative fiscal impacts. Howes°cr, if an adj ustrnent for costs is made to
reflect potential servicing efficient ies wi th bight: r densities, the negative fiscal
impacts are slightly reduced.
• The To«~nshi}~ ~~f Tay shows a largely neutral impact arising from growth,
reflecting nc~ T<~~.-nships's current high residential tax rate, as compared to the
other T~>«~nships.
• The To~~~nshi~~ of Adjala-Tosurontio displays the most significant negative
fiscal impact fr<~m growth, likely a result of the significant level of revenue
sources that tivill i~ot increase with growth.
Towns
• Residential growth results in a neutral to positive fiscal impact for most of the
Towns.
• Higher levels of low density development yield greater levels of positive fiscal
benefits.
• Medium and higher density development, greater share of townhouse units
and introduction of apartments have a varying impact on different
municipalities, but generally lower fiscal benefits. If servicing cost efficiencies
can be achieved with higher density developments, the fiscal impacts will
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 59
TABLE 24
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
GROWTH PROCESS COMMITTEE -MUNICIPAL FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE
FlSCAL IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT - SUMMAR Y OF RESULTS
ALL RESIDENTIAL SCENARIOS
Scenario 1 • Low Density 1 Scenario 2 -Low Density 2 Scenario 3 -Medium Density Urban Setting Scenario 4 -High Density Urban Setting
Change in Tax Rate from 2006 % Change in Tax Rale from 2006 % Change in Tax Rale from 2006 % Change in Tax Rate from 2006
At Build-Oul At Build-Out At Buidl-Out At Build-Out
Lower Tier Im pact UDp@f Tier Impac t Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact Lower Tier Impact Upper Tlef Impact
Townships
Adjata-Tosorontio 5.065 % -0.171 % 7.803 % -0.226 % 9.86c -0.191 % Not Applicable Not Applicable
Clearview 0.249% -0.109 % 1.308% -0.112"-6 1.699 % -0.109 % Not Applicable Not Applicable
Essa 0.957 % -0.171 % 3781 % -0 ' . ~ 4.337% 0.143% Not Applicable Not Applicable
Oro-Medonte 1.540% -0.209% 2.521% -0.~~<,:, 3.017% 0.286°~ Not Applicable NotAppiicable
Ramara 2.955 % -0.079 % 4-641 % -0.097 ;0 5.965 % 0.061 % Not Applicable Not Applicable
Sevem 2.081 % -0.079% 3.353 % -0.097°ra 4.467 % -0.061 % Not Applicable Not Applicable
Spdngwater 0.426 % -0.209 % 1.031 % -0.282% 1-501 % -0.286 % Not Applicable Not Applicable
Tay -0.294 % -0.056 % 0.187% -0.064 % 0.959 % -0-047% Not Applicable Nat Applicable
Tiny 1.084% -0.102 % 1.841 % 0.129 % 2595°~~ -0.095 % Not Applicable Nol Applicable
Towns
Bradford West Gwillimbury -1.944 % -0.240 % -2.482 % 0.326"-5 -2.192% -0.313% -2.299 % -0.359
Collingwood -0.778 % -0.163 % -1.248% - -0.252"b -1.392 % -0.279 % -0.617 % -0.262%
Innisfil -0.133 % -0.156^,~~ -0.080 % -0.216% 0.070 % -0.218% 0.089 % -0.278
Midland -0.703% -0.071 % -0.432 % -0.074°/ -0.207% -0.068 % -0.871 % -0.120
New Tecumseth -0.758 % -0.183 % -0.878°0 -0.21A"o -0.758% -0.218 % -1.391 % -0.325
Penetanguishene -2.631% -0.071 % 2.606% 0.074% -2.332% -0.068% -3.946% -0.120%
Wasaga Beach 0.446 % -0.125 % 1-392 i -0.129 % 1.782 % -0.122 % 1.703 % -0.196
Cities
Barrie -0.372`1-~. Not Applicable -0.4231 Not Applicable -0.250 % Not Applicable -0.361796 % Not Applicable
Orillia 0.104 % Not Applicable 0.4 7 `,o Not Applicable 0.687 % Not Applicable -0.021797 % Not Applicable
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 60
improve.
• The Town of Wasaga Beach displays a neutral to negative fiscal impact from
growth, likely the result of the dependence of revenue sources that are not
anticipated to increase with growth.
Separated Cities
• The City of Barrie displays a neutral to slightly positive fiscal impact under the
residential growth scenarios.
• The City of Orillia displays a neutral to slightly negative fiscal impact under
the residential growth scenarios.
County
• The County of Simcoe displays a neutral ro sli,l~~y positive fiscal impact
under all residential growth scenarios.
C . N 0 N ~2ESID IIV TAL D E~IIIA PM IId'-T FI~C T-~L IM PI~C TS
Table 25 provides a sumnulry~overview of,'the fiscal impact results of the four non-
residential devel~pnZenr scenarios. The results can be summarized as follows:
Townships
• C generally, the "Townships display a negative fiscal impact to both employment
lan~3 and population-related non-residential land uses.
• For some T~nvnships, the negative impacts are significant.
• Population-related employment land uses, or commercial/retail activities,
display the most significant negative fiscal impacts.
Towns
• Employment land uses, for example, industrial or manufacturing activities,
display neutral to positive fiscal impacts for most of the Towns.
• Population-related employment uses, commercial/retail, display neutral to
negative fiscal impacts for most of the Towns.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 61
TABLE 25
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
GROWTH PROCESS COMMITTEE • MUNICIPAL FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE
FISCAL IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT -SUMMARY OF RESULTS
ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL SCENARIOS
Scenario 1 -Employment Land Low Scenario 2 • Employment Land High Scenario 3 -Population Related Low Scenario 4 - Population Related High
Change in Tax Rate from 2006 % Change in Tax Rate from 2006 °/ Change in Tax Rate from 2006 % Change in Tax Rate from 2006
At Build-Out At Build-Out At Build-Out At Build-Out
Lower Tier Im pact Upper Tiar Impac t Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier impact tower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact Lower Tler Im pact Upper Tier Impact
Townships
Adjala-Tosorontio 15.936 % -0.207 % 20.681 % -0.275 % 20.64' -0.089% 39.281 % -0.178
Clearview 1.881 % -0.206 % 2.452 % -0.274° ~ 4.668 % -0.089 % 8.962 % -0.178
Essa 1.539% -0.206% 2.001% -0.7?^°~- 4.621 % -0.089% 8.825% -0.178%
Oro-Medonte 3.188% -0.206% 4-194 % 02 ':'~ 4.889 % -0-~89% 9.570 % -0.178
Ramara 4.529 % -0.206 % 5.902 % -0.774 % 7.569% 0 [789 % 14.530 % -0.178
Sevem 1.317% -0.206 % 1.720 % -0.274°b 3E00% -0.089% 7.326 % -0.178
Springwater 4.853 % -0.206 % 6.348 % -0.274 % 7.436 % -0.089 % 14.384 % -0.178
Tay -0.791 % -0.206% -1.014 % -0.274 % 3.814 % -0.089% 7.082 % -0.178
Tiny 2.572% -0.206 % 3.378 % -0.274 % 4.448% -0-089 % 8.675 % -0.178
Towns
Bradford West Gvrillimbury -0.993% -0.265% -1.302 % 0.352% 0.383 % -0.163% 0.741 % -0.326%
Collingwood -1.301% -0.265 % -1.704 % 0.352?-~ 0.137% -0.163 % 0.265% -0.326%
Innisfil 0.207% -0.265% 0.273 % -0.352 % 1.213 % -0.163% 2.375 % -0.326
Midland -2.210 % -0.206°.;, -2861 % -0.274 % 0.197 % -0.089% 0.378 % -0.178
New Tecumseth -0.683 % -0.265":, -0.898 % 0.352"~ 0.438 % -0.163 % 0.854 % -0.326
Penetanguishene -4.295 % -0.206 % 5.488°-a n.774 % 0.406 % -0.089 % 0.748 % -0.178
Wasaga Beach 1.756 % 0.285°s 2.297' 6 -0.352 % 3.545 % -0.163 % 6.832 % -0.326%
Cities
Banie -0.253 % Not Appticab6 0.32 G" Not Applicable -0.152 % Not Applicable -0.301 % Not Applicable
Orillia -1.365°r~ Not Applicable 175 , - Not Applicable -0.698 % Not Applicable -1.354 % Not Applicable
Schedule I County Officers CO 08-012 Page 62
Separated Cities
• The City of Barrie displays a neutral to slightly positive fiscal impacts under
both the employment land and population-related non-residential scenarios.
• The City of Orillia displays a slightly positive fiscal impact under both the
employment land and population-related non-residential scenarios.
County
~~~__
• The County of Simcoe displays a neutral to slighd}~ positive fiscal impact
under both the employment land and populari<~n-related non-residential
scenarios.
D. DISCUSSI7N OFF]ND~IGS
The Fiscal Impact of Growth Is Neutral to Positive
In general, the results of the fiscal impact an~~h~sis are consistent with the analysis
undertaken in other s~~irthern Ontazio jurisdicti~>ns: development at build-out
generally rest~lt~ in neutral to positive fiscal benefits for municipalities.
Funding of Capital Infrastructure
An important i~rovisiun to this general finding is that growth does not fully pay for
the initial capital cast of municipal infrastructure. Legislative restrictions,
exemptu~ns and ceilings imposed by the Development Charges Act result in capital
funding sh~~rtfalls even with the implementation of maximum permissible
development ehar~es rates. The DC funding shortfalls are increased when
consideration is given to municipal policies, practices and rates that provide for
non-statutory exemptions and the reduction or phase-in of charges for some land
uses. In addition, in recent years the development cost adjustment index has not
kept pace with the increase in construction costs, resulting in additional funding
shortfalls. These capital funding shortfalls are financed from the property tax base
and utility rates.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 0$-012 Page 63
Reliance on Payments-in-Lieu of Taxation and Unconditional Grants
The analysis has shown that development generally creates fiscal pressures on the
Townships. This finding was to some degree surprising. Table 26 displays a
summary of the main funding sources of municipal expenditures by each of the
municipalities in the County. As shown, the Townships have a greater reliance on
payments-in-lieu (PILs} of taxation and unconditional grants than do the Towns,
the County and the City of Barrie. For the Townships, these two sources generally
account for 12%-20% of the funding of net tax levy expendi~res, and as high as
40% and 50% in two Townships. As a comparison, the T~~~e~ns, with the exception
of Wasaga Beach and the City of Orillia, only ftiinc3 1 `%,-4`%'~ of the net tax levy
expenditures from these sources.
The importance of this issue in the conre~t c,f fiscal ; ~ n ~-~,~ct analysis is rl ~,~i ~unerally
these two revenue sources do not increase in resp~~n ~~~ to growth. Payne ~~nts-in-lieu
of taxation are generated from Provincial and F~ ~leral government buildings. Most
fiscal impact analyses do not ~~,stmie a growth in PILs as a result of additional
development.
The unconditional grants monies are largely frum the Ontario Municipal
Partnership Fund (Oi~~1PF). The Province describes these funds as:
The introductio» of the On~:_rri:~ ti4uriicipal Partnership Fund - a clear and
transparent sysrern of ~ranrs - l:; part of the Province's overall commitment to
support municipalities. It assists municipalities with their share of social program
posts; includes ec{itali~ation measures for areas with limited property assessment;
adclresses chall<,~~1~~~s faced by northern and rural communities; and responds to
polio in,~ cost; in rural communities.
The total level ~~f OMPF funding has remained unchanged for several years and the
2008 budget is the same as 2007. Generally, individual municipalities have received
the same level of OMPF over the last several years. There is no expectation that
this funding will increase.
The fiscal impact analysis has shown that those municipalities with higher levels
of PILs and unconditional grant funding display a negative fiscal impact in response
to growth. This impact is not a direct result of growth but rather a function of the
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012
Page 64
TABLE 26
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
GROWTH PROCESS COMMITTEE • MUNICIPAL FINANCE SUB-C OMMITTEE
F ISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
PAYMENT S-IN -LIEU AND UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AS A SHARE OF NET EXPENDRURES
Supplementary PILS and
Municipality Total Net Other Revenues Transfers From Taxes and Net Expenditure Pay ments-In-Lieu Unconditional Tax Levy Unconditionals
Expenditure Own Funds of Taxation (PILS) Grants Grants as % of Net
Adjustments
Expenditures
Townships
Adjala-Tosorontio $ 6,127,778 $ 2,013,823 $ 243,318 $ 20,711 $ 3,5x9.926 $ 727,337 $ 763,679 $ 2,347,789 39%
Ciearview $ 9,410,669 $ 933,657 $ 539,451 $ (115,964] S 8,053,525 $ 137,874 S 1,426,000 $ 6,657,094 19%
Essa $ 8,951,824 $ 1,024,260 $ 427,664 $ (57,337) $ 7 557,237 $ 2,524,282 ~$ 1,218,941 $ 3,814,034 50%
Oro-Medonte $ 13,385,524 $ 3,088,331 $ 221,947 ~ 894,896 $ 9,i8C,:',50 $ 101,770 $ 1,Q06,432 $ 8,072,148 12%
Ramara $ 8,982,147 $ 2,763,587 $ 559,662 $ 136,683 $ 5.522,215 $ 83,711 $ 774,420 $ 4,664,084 16%
Sevem $ 8,884,023 $ 2,150,191 $ 72,973 $ 187,352 $ 6,493.x67 5 137,209 $ 643,860 $ 5,712,398 12%
Springwater $ 12,510,477 $ 1,726,154 $ 3,026,730 $ 14Q928 $ 7,616.665 S 258,864 $ 661,968 $ 6,695,833 12%
Tay $ 7,982,944 $ 1,990,724 $ 142,270 $ 65,557 ~ 5,783,998 $ 67,873 $ 1,051,904 $ 4,664,216 19%
Tiny $ 9,579,660 $ 3,169,022 S 15[1.770 $ {55?,293) $ 7.111,161 $ 151,682 $ 818,072 $ 6,141,417 14%
Towns
Bradford West Gwillimbury $ 18,431,801 $ 3,1n4,F76 3 361,355 $ 148,<63 3 14,817,107 $ 57,305 $ 63,000 $ 14,696,802 1%
Collingwood $ ~ 21,857,116 $ 3,334,199 S 175,486 $ 1,151,332 $ 17,146,099 $ 149,485 $ - $ 16,996,614 1%
Innisfii $ 27,251,277 $ 7,959,954 $ 705,725 $ 319,664 $ 18,261,694 $ 215,361 $ - $ 18,046,333 1°l
Midland $ 17,300,844 ~ 2, i 23.285 S 107.877 $ 779,893 $ 14,289,789 $ 227,013 $ 234.000 $ 13,967,831 3%
NewTecumseth $ 20,058.943 $ 2,631,799 S 1,575,231 $ 1,437,076 $ 14,414,837 $ 119,581 $ 213,332 $ 14,066,787 2%
Penetanguishene $ 8,13?,265 S 496,598 $ 638,780 $ 253,096 $ 6,743,791 $ 156,284 $ 106,000 $ 6,547,315 4%
Wasaga Beach $ 18,068,449 5 4,671,258 $ 1,246,392 $ 243,090 $ 11,907,709 $ 412,729 $ 897,412 $ 10,597,568 11%
SimcoeCounty $ 95,097,729 $ 12,3fl1,176 $ 2,544,326 $ 1,396,372 $ 78,775,855 $ 1,640,443 $ 603,000 $ 76,532,412 3%
Cftles
Orillia $ 41,515,146 $ 6,105,238 $ 1,033,082 $ 146,326 $ 34,230,500 $ 2,952,153 $ (,686,000 $ 29,246,788 14%
Barrie $ 159,412,859 $ 24,253,034 $ 6,048,635 $ 3,681,658 $ 125,429,532 $ 1,424,684 $ - $ 124,004,848 1%
HEMSON
Schedule l County Officers CO 08-012 Page 65
existing municipal funding structure.
Prevailing Tax Rates
There is a clear correlation between the fiscal impact results and current tax rates.
Those municipalities that have lower tax rates display a more significant negative
fiscal impact from growth. This is most pronounced with the Townships in that
they generally have significantly lower tax rates, as shown on Table 4.
Over time the Townships are likely to experience upwai~cl pressures on tax rates. As
growth and development occurs, services are demanded at a higher level, and also
payments-in-lieu and unconditional grant revenue remain lari;ely unchanged.
Tax Ratios
The prevailing tax ratios, the residential tax rate .:~~ compared to the commercial
and industrial tax rates in many nnu~icipalities in rl,~~ County are quite narrow, as
shown on Tables 5 and 6, respectively. !~ resr~lt of the higher tax ratios is that tax
revenues generated by a dollar of residential assessment and non-residential
assessment are eery similar. This means that attracting non-residential
development does n~~r generate the fiscal. benefit it once did and there is a greater
equalization of tax<iti~~n sharing amongst different property classes.
Estimated Assessment Values
Table 27 provicL~~ ~~ ,~nnm.~ry of the fiscal impacts of residential growth on the
lower-tier municipa I i r . ~~s in the County of Simcoe. The table displays the prevailing
average residential assessment per unit in each municipality and the range of
estimated assessment of new residential units.
The next set of columns provides the calculated range of fiscal "break-even"
average assessments. This is the assessment that would generate property tax
revenues equal to the increase in tax levy expenditures generated by the household.
The final set of columns displays the difference between the estimated and the
break-even assessment values.
This summary is consistent with the previous commentary and illustrates that the
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 66
TABLE 27
COUNTY OF SIMCOE
GROWTH PROCESS COMMITTEE -MUNICIPAL FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT VALUES VS. CALCULATED BREAKEVEN ASSESSMENT VALUES
Prevailing Average Range of Estimated Average
Municipality
Assessment Per
Assessments Per Household Used in the Calculated Breakeven Average Difference Between Estimated Average
Household
Fiscal Impact Analysis Assessments Per Household and Breakeven Assessments
Fiscal Impact of Growth is Negative
Adjala-Tosorontio $290,000 $220,000 - $290,000 $385,000 - S420,000 -$165,000 - -$130,000
Oro-Medonte $290,000 $255,000 - $300.000 $360,000 - u00 -$105,000 - -$95,000
Essa $180,000 $180,000 - $275.000 5280,000 - ~ ;u5,000 -$100,000 - -$30,000
Ramara $230,000 $175,000 - $230,000 $260,000 - $315,000 -$85,000 - -$85,000
Sevem $220,000 $175,000 - $215,000 $255,000 - $290,000 -$80,000 - -$75,000
Tiny $240,000 $185,000 - $245,000 5240,000 $285,000 -$55,000 - -$40,000
Springwater $250,000 $245,000 - $300,000 5280,000 - $315,000 -$45,000 - -$15,000
Clearview $220,000 $190,000 - $235,000 52< _;,^~C - $245,000 -$35,000 - -$10,000
Tay $140,000 $140,000 $200,000 $1 E'a , ' i - $195,000 -$25,000 - $5,000
Wasaga Beach $200,000 $190,000 - 5245,000 $21 ' i 0 - $265,000 -$20,000 - -$20,000
Fiscat Impact of Growth is Neutral to Positive
Midland $140,000 5140,000 - $210,000 $145,000 - $185,000 -$5,000 - $25,000
Innisfil $240,000 5215,000 - $265,000 $215,000 - $255,000 $0 - $10,000
Coliingwood $190,600 5190,000 - $27Q,000 $180,000 - $230,000 $10,000 - $40,000
Penetanguishene $160.000 $160,000 - 5210,000 $140,000 - $165,000 $20,000 - $45,000
NewTecumseth $230,000 5225.000 - $276,000 $185,000 - $220,000 $40,000 - $50,000
Bradford-West Gwiilimbury $240,000 $235,000 - 5320,D00 $180,000 - $215,000 $55,000 - $105,000
Barrie $190,000 5190,000 $300,000 $175,000 - $200,000 $15,000 - $100,000
Orillia $150.000 5150,000 - $225,000 $190,000 - $230,000 -$40,000 - $5,000
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 67
Townships and the Town of Wasaga Beach are negatively impacted by growth. The
negative impact is a function of the assessment values but also the prevailing fiscal
situation and relatively low tax rates in the Townships.
The Towns generally derive a positive fiscal impact from growth. A significant
contributing factor for the Town is that the average values of new units are
estimated to be greater than the prevailing average assessment of existing units. In
addition, the Towns have a low reliance on unconditional grants and other local
revenue sources and as such, have prevailing tax rates that are set to fully fund
household expenditures.
Impacts at the County Level
The analysis has shown that the County displ~iys a general positive fiscal benefit to
growth regardless of the location of growth in the Cc~un'ty. It is important to note
that a positive fiscal benefit at the County les~el accrues to all residents of the
County by way of lowering upper-tier taxes.
E. CONCLUS%JNS
The analysis is inten~~e~j r~~ provide the stib-committee with a tool to answer the
question:
~Ylhether or not grv~,vth is reciz-sired to improve the community's financial position, or
provides other benefits such as n greater level of community, economic opportunity or
others.
The general finding ~f the fiscal impact analysis is that growth, both residential and
non-residential, results in fiscal challenges to municipalities in Simcoe County. Under
the current Development Charges Act, growth does not fully pay for growth and
development requires a municipality to expend tax dollars to fund a share of expanding
municipal infrastructure and services.
When initial capital costs are funded, growth generates fiscal benefits for the County
and most Towns. For the Townships, growth, under the current fiscal structure, results
in upward pressure on tax rates.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 68
In the context of the 5imcoe Growth Area Plan Study, the fiscal impact analysis
illustrates that growth is not required to improve a community's fiscal position. In
reality, all municipalities in the County will experience growth and will be required to
react to the servicing needs of development and address the resulting fiscal pressures.
There are many reasons why a community, both locally and at a County level, benefit
from having a variety and balance in type, location and quantity of growth. Providing
a variety of types and locations of residential development combined with different local
employment opportunities contribute to achieving a complete community.
The analysis has shown that fiscal issues are important and all nu.uiicipalities will need
to respond to fiscal pressures of growth, but should not be the critical factor in making
decisions about specific locations, quantum or tq}~es of development.
An important finding of the analysis is that groU th o{ all r~~.~;~ ~ yields a general positive
fiscal impact on the County. Therefore, as growth occurs anywhere within in the
County, all residents share the fiscal benefits.
HEMS4N
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 69
APPENDIX E
Details on the Distribution of Population and Employment Growth
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 70
Simcoe Area Growth Plan
Distribution of Population Growth, 2006 to 2031
2006 Census Approved Growth From Growth Growth From
Total Official Plan 2006 to Official Allocated to Urtailocated Total 2031 2006 to Growth
Municipality Population Population Target Plan Target County Growth Population Plan Allocation
Adjala-Tosorontio 11,100 14,200 3,100 - - 14,200 3,100
New Tecumseth 28,800 34,000 5,200 3,000 12,000 49,000 20,200
Bradford-West Gwiilimbury 25,000 49,700 24.700 - - 49,700 24,700
Innisfil 32,400 47,000 14,600 2,000 16,000 65,000 32,600
Essa 17,600 22,900 5,300 - - 22,900 5,300
Ciearview 14,600 19,500 4,900 3,000 3,500 26,000 11,400
Collingwood 18,000 25,000 7,000 3,200 2.000 30,200 12,200
Wasaga Beach 15,600 35,000 19,400 - - 35,000 19,400
Springwater 18,100 23,500 5.400 ?;500 1,500 26,500 8,400
Oro-Medonte 20,800 28,100 7,300 - - 28,100 7,300
Ramara 9,800 15,500 5,700 - - 15,500 5,700
Sevem 12,500 20.200 7,700 - - 20,200 7,700
Tay 10,100 11,300 1,200 - - 11,300 1,200
Tiny 11,200 13,900 2,700 - - 13,900 2,700
Midland 16,900 19,700 2,800 - - 19,700 2,800
Penetanguishene 9,700 10,800 1,100 1,500 - 12,300 2,600
Sub-Total County of Simcoe 272,200 390,300 118,100 14,200 35,000 439,500 167,300
City of Barrie 133,540 175,000 41,500 - 10,000 185,000 51,500
City ofOriliia 31,400 41,000 9,600 - - 41,000 9,600
First Nations 1,500 1,500 - - - 1,500 -
Total 438,600 607,800 169,200 14,200 45,000 667,000 228,400
Check 14,200 45,000
Notes: 2006 Census population is total population, adjusted upwar ds to include an approximately 4%under-coverage.
Approved Official Plan population targets are also adjusted upwards to include an app roximately 4%under-coverage where required.
Approved official plan forecast for Adjala-Tosorontio is the mid-point of the range provi ded in the official plan.
Approved official plan forecast for Oro-Medonte is the low-end of the range provided in the official plan.
First Nations population held c onstant at 1,500 through forecast period.
Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 71
Simcoe Area Growth Plan
Distribution of Employment Growth, 2006 to 2031
2001 Census 2001 Census 2001 2006 Census 2006 Census 2006 Provincial Provincial Forecast Empoyment
Population Emlpoyment Activity Population Employment Activity 2031 Growth Unalbcated in 2031 Growth
Municipality Rate Rate Allocation 2031 Employment 2006 to 2031
Adjala-Tosorontio 10,100 1,300 13% 10,700 1,600 ~5%, 2,100 - 2,100 500
New Tecumseth 26,100 17,300 66% 27,700 19,700 71 % 26,300 - 26,300 6,600
Bradford-West Gwillimbury 22,200 6,700 30% 24,000 8,000 33°/ 10,700 5,50D 16,200 8,200
Innisfii 28,700 5,900 21% 31,200 5,700 18% 7,600 5,500 13,100 7,400
Essa 16,800 6,800 41% 16,900 7,700 45% 10,300 - 10,300 2,600
Ciearview 13,800 3,800 27% 14,100 4,400 31% 5,800 - 5,800 1,500
Collingwood 16,000 10,800 68% 17,300 10,800 62°!0 14,100 - 14,400 3,600
Wasaga Beach 12,400 2,300 19% 15,000 3,100 20% 4,100 - 4,100 1,000
Springwater 16,100 4,400 27% 17,500 5,000 29% 6,700 - 6,700 1,700
Oro-Medonte 18,300 4,200 23% 20,000 4,700 23% 6,200 - 6,200 1,600
Ramara 8,600 1,900 22% 9,400 1,900 20% 2,500 - 2,500 600
Sevem 11,100 3,500 31% 12,000 3,900 33% 5,300 - 5,300 1,300
Tay 9,200 1,400 16% 9.700 1,500 15% 2,000 - 2,000 500
Tiny 9,000 1,300 14% 1D,8D0 1,400 '°k 1,900 - 1,900 500
Midland 16,200 10,400 64% 16.300 12,000 r 1 16,000 - 16,000 4,000
Penetanguishene 8,300 4,400 53% 9,400 5,300 7,000 7,000 1,800
Sub-Total County of Simcoe 243,100 86,400 36% 262,000 9s,ap0 .,. ,,, 128,900 11,000 139,900 43,500
City of Barrie 103,700 52,700 51% 128,400 64,3ui, 50% 88,000 2,000 90,000 25,700
City of Orillia 29,100 16.100 55% 30,300 19,700 65% 21,000 - 21,000 1,300
First Nations 1,100 3,100 272°i6 1,500 3,100 0% 3,100 - 3,100 -
Total 377,100 158,200 42°6 422,200 .183,500 43% 241,000 13,000 254,000 7Q500
Notes: 2006 Census Employment is total employment with 'No Fixed Place of Wo rk" redistributed in accordance wi th regular shares of
2006 Place of Work and At Home -°rnployment
2001 Census Employment i< s~c~ i ,rly adjusted.
Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012
APPENDIX F
Estimate of Long-Range Employment Land Requirements
Page 72
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 73
SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN
ESTIMATE OF EMPLOYMENT LAND REQUIREMENTS
2006 - 2031
An estimate of the employment land requirements for the Simcoe County Area has
been prepared using the 2006 Census employment figure of 183,500 jobs and the
Provincial Growth Plan employment allocation of 254,000 jobs in 2031. There are three
steps to estimating the employment land requirements:
• The first step is to estimate employment by the three land-use types: major
office employment; employment land employment and population-related
employment. For the Simcoe County Area, e~lployment land employment
and major office employment are combined into a single category.
• The second step is to apply a range ofdensi~y factors to the forecast Urowth in
employment land and major office employrtlenr, to estimaa c the land
requirements. A range of density is applied, from a Iuw density ot~ 30 jobs per
net ha to a high density of 40 jobs per net ha.
The final step is to compare the estimate of employment land need to the
currently designated employment land supple. The comparison of supply and
demand focusses on the southern communities in Simcoe, where demand for
employment lane is anticipated t<~ be the strongest.
As shown in the table belo~~~, employment land and major office employment combined
are forecast to nmu~ by appro~imatel}~ 32,800 jobs from 2006 to 2031. This represents
approximately 47`io of the overall employlllent growth.
Employment Forecast By Major Type
Simcoe County Area 2006 to 2031
Type 2006 2031 Growth Share
2005 - 2031
Employment Land and Major Office 97,200 130,000 32,800 47%
Rural and Farm-Based 4,900 4,900 - 0%
Population-Related 81,400 119,100 37,700 53%
Total Employment 183,500 254,000 70,500 100%
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., based on 2006 Census employment information and the Provincial
Growth Plan employment allocation of 254,000 jobs in 2031.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CCU 08-012 Page 74
2
As shown in the table below, this results in a requirement for between approximately
700 and 900 net ha of employment land in south Simcoe.
Estimated Employment Land Need
South Simcoe Communities
Estimated Net Vacant Employment land Supply 2006 Existing Net Ha
City of Barrie 450
Town of Innisfill 140
Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury 420
Town of New Tecumseth 410
Total Estimated Net Vacant Supply: 1,420
Less: Bradford By-Pass (Highway 400-404 Link) 150
Less: Adjustment Eor Long-Term Vacancy (1) 340
Estimated 2006 Net Effective Supply 930
Estimated Employment Land Employment Growth, 2006 to 2037 Employment
Estimated Employment Land Employment Growth, All of thE~ Simcoe 32,800
County Area, 2006 to 2031 under Gro~h~th Plan forecast allncatic>n
Share Allocated to South Simcoe Communities C~) 80%
Employment land Employment Growth, Souih Simcoe ~ 26,200
Population- Related f.mplovm~nt on Employment Land (;) 1,100
Total Growth in Fn~i~loyni~~nt on Cmployment Land, 2006 to 2031 27,300
Estimated Employment Land Requirements, 2006 to 2031 Net Ha Required
At 4U fobs pr°r n~a ha: 680
nt _~ jobs per n~~t ha: 780
At 30 jobs per net ha: 910
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., based upon updated supply information. Supply for the
Town of Bradtord West Gwillimbury includes designated employment land around
tha~ Hi~;h~ay COQ-404 link and the Highway 400-88 Special Policy Area.
Note 1: Long-tee m vacancy based on 10% of the total estimated net occupied and vacant
employment land supply for the south Simcoe communities of approximately
3,400 ha, excluding lands designated around the Bradford By-Pass.
Note 2: A share of 80% of the total County-wide employment land employment growth
reflects the anticipation that most but not all future employment land employment will
be likely be concentrated in the south. The southern communities' current share of
employment land employment and the estimated occupied employment land supply
is approximately 60%.
Note 3: Estimated as 5% of the growth in population-related employment for the southern
communities, approximately 22,620 jobs. 22,620 jobs is 60% of the overall growth
of 37,700 population-related jobs for the County from 2006 to 2031 . Taking 5% of
22,620 jobs results in an estimate of approximately 1,100 population-related
employment jobs on employment land.
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 75
APPENDIX G
Estimate of Recreation-Based Housing Units
HEMSON
Schedule l County Officers CO 08-012 Page 76
Estimated Recreation-Based Housing Units
Simcoe County Area, 2006
Hemson Consulting Ltd, 2008
Estimated Seasonal and Recreational Housing Units, 2006
1 Total private dwellings (2006 Census) 180,100
2 Private dwellings occupied by usual residents (2006 Census)* 156,700
3 Difference includes marginal dwellings, vacant units, and units occupied by foreign or temporary 23,400
residents. For the Simcoe County Area, most of this difference is likely made up of the marginal and
vacant units, which would include most seasonal or recreational dwellings, as the owners would
have a usual place of residence elsewhere: e.g. the Census would count an indi~~idual at home
in Toronto and count their cottage in Simcoe as vacant.
4 Normal expected vacancy rate in an urban location with few seasonal or recreational units. 3.5%
To estimate this rate, the figure for the City of Barrie is used to repre~enr an uri~an place with
few seasonal and recreational units.
5 Estimated "normal" vacant units for the Simcoe County Area (3.5% of Total t'rivarc Dwellings) 6,300
6 Estimated recreation-based units 2006 17,100
(Difference between Total Private Dwellings and Private Dwellings occuitx_~d by usual resicients,
less the estimated "nortmal" vacant units)
'Note: Unless otherwise specificrl, all data in Census hou<Ir,,; products, anal the fore°casts shown in the Provincial
Growth Plan for the Greater Gulden Horseshoe, arc• for <~~_~ upir~~l private dwellings, rather than for unoccupied
private dwellin:;, cu ri"~cllinf;5 occupied by foreign a~idlc~r temfwrary residents.
Hemson Consulting Ltd.
4/13/2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 77
APPENDIX H
Estimate of Growth Plan Density in New Residential Communities
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 0$-012 Page 78
Analysis of Current Growth Plan Densities
For a Selection of New Development Applications
Simcoe County Area
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 79
Slmcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdivision Name R&M Homea-Everett Part of Lots 31 3 3T C onceasfon 7
Munfdpaldy and Commurdty Ad)ala-Tosorontio New Tecumseth
Deveopment or Approval Status ?? ??
Total Land Area 51.5 ha 127.3 acrea 28.4 ha 70.3 acres
Non-devebpable Area as Per Growth Plan 1.2 3.0 0.0 0.0
(welarrds, coastal wetlaMs, woodlands,
va8eylands, ANSIs, and widlife and or fish
Growth Plan Greenfield Area (DGA) 50.3 ha 124.3 acres 28.4 ha 70.3 acres
Other Non-Developable Areas 4.4 70.7 0.0 0.1
(Hydro coirridor, pipekne easments, road rights of way, daylighNng
triangles, road setbacks, santtary treatment area, pump station)
Other NarNeighbourfiood Areas 0.1 0.1 0.% 0.4
(Insthutaional uses, mayor commercial cenVes,
artedal roads, seconary schools)
Future Resdentiat, Commercal or Other Development 0.1 0.3 O.n 0.0
Groas Residential Area GRA 45.8 ha 113.0 acres 100°!~ 28.2 ha 89.8 acres 1009:
Storm Water Management Ponds 2.6 6.5 6"~6 0.0 0%
Parks and Parkettes 0.0 0.0 U?, 1.4 3:' 5%
Neighbourtaod Schools 0.0 0.0 09° L ~ 0.0 0%
NaighUourhood Commercal Uses
LS
3.8
3"0 ,~3~.
0.0
0.0 ~
0%
Other Open Space, BuRers, Entry Features etc. 2.5 6.3 6`-; 0.0 0.0 0
Local Roads 10.0 24 7 22% b.3 15.6 22%
Net Residential Area NRA 29.1 ha 71.8 acres 63': 20.5 ha 50.7 Berea 73%
Total Units 441.0 uMts 774 0 units
Net Density (uni[s divided NRA) 15.2 units/ha b-t unn_na cre 37.7 units/ha 15.3 uniWaae
Gross Density funds divided by GRA) 9.6 units/ha 3 9 urnce'a cre 27.4 units/ha 11.1 units/aae
Growth Plan Denstty (units divided by DGA) 8.8 unltsfie 3.5 unfits, a cre 27.2 untts/ha 11.0 units/acre
Chock 61.5 0.0 28.4 0.0
Unit Mlx end Po ulatlon Estimate Units PPU Po ulation Units PPU Po ulatlon
Slny-ie De:acr,ed 26'. 3 G~ 799 312 3.02 942
Sen?!i]e:a ~d 180 3.35 603 0 2.63 -
Row Frs.aa 2.33 - 51 2.5 128
P,i»nmentUni; 2.11 - 411 1.78 732
- Total 44'. 3.18 1,402 774 2.33 1,801
Check from Above i - -
Estimate of Work at Home _
2001 Populaton 10,082 26,141
Work at Home Empoyment 575 995
Ratb of Populatbn to Work at Home Employment 5.70% 3.Bt %
Estimated Work of Home Employment (COmnwn~'v vdde ratio 80 69
appNed to subdivision populatbn estimate)
Estimate of Commerdal Em o ant
Commercial Land Area (ha) 1.54 0
Coverage 25 % 25%
Conversion to square metres of iwdding space 3,850 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estmated Commercal Empoyment 96 0
Estimate of Institutional Em to ment
Instltutional Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 30% 30°k
Converson fo square metres oT building space 0 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Instltutional Empoyment 0 0
Total Work at Home, Commercial and Instiutional Jobs 176 69
Total People and Jobs 1,578 1,870
fW~tLWoPIRd~faMtli'~tf~7.::,' ~ t. ....31 ' ~ ~g
~ ;. ~` ~"'F~f 1 ,
H~maon ConeukMp Ltd. Januxry 200e
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 80
Slmcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdivision Neme Part of Horth Half of Lot 13, Concession 8 8rooktield Homes (OntaNo) Umited
Munidpalky and Community BWG BWG
Deveopment or Approval Status ?? ??
Total Land Area 27.5 ha 68.1 acres 83.5 ha 206.3 acres
Non-devebpable Area es Per Growth Plen 0.0 0.0 7.5 18.5
(welarWs, coastal wellands, woodlands,
vaUeylands, ANSIs, and wildltte and or fish
GrowM Plan Greenfield Area (DGA) 27.5 ha 88.1 acres 78.0 tra 187.7 acres
Other Non-Devekspable Areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
(Hydro colyddor, pipeline easments, road rights of way, dayllghting
triangles, mad setbacks, sanitary treatment area, pump station)
Other Non-Neighbourhood Areas 0.0 0.0 ~" G 0.0
(Instilutabnal uses, major commercial centres,
Medal roads, seconary schools)
Future Residential, Commercial or Other Development 5.8 14.3 ? 5 3. t
Gross Residential Area GRA 21.8 ha 53.8 acres 100°I. 74.7 ha 184.5 saes t00Y.
Storm Water Management Ponds t.1 2.7 bio 3.9 9 6 5%
Perks and Parkettes 1.3 3.1 6"4. 5.0 12A 7%
Neighbourhood Schools 1-6 B.9 ~ - ~ 2.5
i 6.2 3%
Neighbourhood Commercal Uses 2-3 5.8 Y. i, 0.0 0.0 0%
Other Open Space, Buffers, Entry Features eta 0.0 0.0 0`<;, 0.0 0.0 0%
Loral Roads 4.6 11.3 i 19.7 48.6 26%
Net Residential Area NRA 10.9 ha 26.9 acres SOX 43.6 ha 107.6 acres 58•/.
Total Units 180.0 units 596.0 units
Net Density (untts divided NRA) 16.5 unitsMa B 7 unhs: a cre 22.9 unHs/ha 9.3 units/acre
Gross Density (units divided by GRA) 8.3 units/ha 3 3 unn_yacre 13.3 unitslha 5.4 urfrtslacre
Growth Pian Density (units divided by DGA) E:.S units/ha 2.e units/acre 13.1 unitslha 5.3 unitslacre
Check ?7 5 0.0 83.5 0.0
Unit Mix and Po ulatbn Estlmata ! Units PPU Po ulation Units PPU Po uletbn
Single DaLr.;l~.eai 180 33!5 603 964 3.35 3,296
ahml Dv:+r.hed ~ 0 3 36 - 12 3.36 40
Rcw house .i 2.3 - 0 2.3 -
ApaCCientUnl'. 0 2.[36 - 0 2.06 -
Tats. 190 9.35 603 996 3.35 3,337
Check from l~bov- - -
Estmate of Work at Home
2001 Populaton 22,228 22,228
Work at Home Empoyment 900 900
Ratio of Populatlon to Work at Home Empluye•en! 4.05% 4.05%
Estimated Work at Home Employment (commw~2y elide i atlo 24 135
applied to subdivisbn populatbn estlmate)
Estimate of Commercial Em to ment
Commercial Land Area (ha) 2.339 0
Coverage 25 % 25
Conversbn to square metres of building space 5,848 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Commercial Empoyment 146 0
Estimate of Institutbnal Em b ment
InsUtutbnal Land Area (ha) 2 3
Coverage 30% 30 %
Conversbn to square metres of building space 4,701 7,560
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated InsbtuGonal Empoyment 118 189
Total Work at Home, Commercial and Inaftutlonal Jobs 288 324
Total People and Jobs 891 3,861
~I grov.4r Pl en Uensi~tPAdpM ardJo~e ptvlt3ad frr 6PAt.~~;~,-:~..-'_! OrovYth Plit+Oerrltl' ~ i._ _.• [.~,~-;+, ';?'.12,~ ~ ~••.l t~ryryr QlRrr l3sr~ty %.'~-.,~~5:`~ ;4a •. '.~~.;.
1lemnoa coa.wuaa ud. Jaaaary zoos
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 81
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdivision Name Westbrook Part of the North Half of lot 21 Conceaslon 7
Munldpality end Community BWG Innlsfll
Deveopment a Approval Status ~~ ~~
Total Land Area 57.4 ha 141.9 acres 17.5 he 43.3 acres
Non-devebpable Area as Per Growth Plan 7.1 17.6 0.0 0.0
(welands, coastal we0ands, woodlands,
vafleylands, ANSIs, end wildlife and or fish
Growth Plan Greenfield Area (DGA) 50.3 ha 124.3 acres 17.5 ha 43.3 acres
Other Non-Developable Areas 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
(Hydro colrridor, pipeline easments, road riytus of way, dayllghtkg
triangles, road setbacks, sankary treatment area, pump statlon)
Other Non-Neighbourhood Areas 0.0 0.0 n " . .3
'
(InstlWtaional uses, major comrtrercial cemres,
arterial roads, seconary schools)
Future Residential, Commercial or Other Development QO 0.1 0.2 0.4
Gross Residentlal Area GRA 50.2 ha 124.0 acres 100 yo 1 ; Z rya. 42.5 acres 100X
Stone Water Management Ponds 4.1 10.1 8°,0 0.0 O.G 0%
Parks and Parkettes 1.3 3.1 3~~e 0.0 0.0 0%
Neighbourtood Schools OA 0.0 0',o n.0 0.0 0%
Neighbourhood Commercal Uses
OA
0.0
O:L ~~
0:(S
0.0 e
0%
Other Open Space, Buffers, Entry Features etc. Q2 0.4 ., ;. 0.8 2.1 5%
Local Roads 12.8 31.7 26~~~ 4.6 11.4 27%
Het Residentlal Area NRA 31.9 ha 78.7 acres 63 G 11.8 ha 29.1 acres 69%
Total Units 765.0 units 224,0 units
Net Densfly (untts dNided NRA) 24.0 units(ha 9J ; ni!c'acre ( 19.0 units/he 77 unlLS/aae
Gross Density (units dlvbed by GRA) 15.2 units/ha B2 ~.~ni~s!aae 13.0 unttsfia 5.3 uniLS/acre
Growth Plan Density (antis divided by DGA) ' 5.2 units/ha 62 unitstaae 12.8 uoits/ha 5.2 unftsJaae
Check 57.4 0.0 17.5 0.0
Unit Mix and Po ulation Estlmate i
~Unlts
PPU
Po ladon
Units
PPU
P ulatlon
__ __,_
Slagle Detached' 765 3 35 2,563 204 2.63 577
Sarni De~-t'n~' ~ 3.36 - 0 2.43 -
Row h ~ 2.3 - 20 2.92 58
Apar vent ~.. 2.06 - 0 1.64 -
~.. ~ 3.35 2,563 224 2.84 636
Check Fran ;;
Estlmete of Work at Home
_ __ __
_
2001 Poputaton ,
22.228
28,666
Work at Home Empbymant 900 1075
Rath of Populatbn to Work at Home Emplop^er, t .. 4.05% 3.75
Estimated Work et Home Employment (Communi ty wide rasa 104 24
applied to subdWisbn populatbn estimate)
nercial Land Area (ha) 0 u
raga 25 % 25%
ersbn to square metres of building space 0 0
per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
reted Commercal Empbyment 0 0
itbnal land Area (ha) 0 0
rage 30% 30%
ersbn to square mares of twilling space 0 0
per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
fated Institutional Empbyment 0 0
Work at Home, CommerGal and Insftutlonal Jobs 104 24
People aM Jobs 2,667 660
~'at~oPlt'a~Mn~4!a. ~., Itiil~yrMt~trn' 6s:~,~~> r _-^~, t°,,., ~d;4;
t+.a,.on cw,.umrro ua. .t.a~,ry zoos
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 0$-012 Page 82
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysts
Subdivision Name Block D and Part of Blocks B and C Plan 1071 Esaa DeveMpmenta - Phase 1
Munidpality and Community Innisfil Essa Clevelopments -Phase 1
Davebpment or Approval Status 77 1?
Total Land Aree 3.1 ha 7.8 acres 31.1 ha 76.9 acres
Non-devebpeble Area as Par Growth Plan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(welands, coastal wetlands, woodlands,
vaAeylands, ANSIs, and wildlife and a fish
Growth Plan Greenfield Area (DGA) 3.1 ha 7.8 acres 31.1 ha 78.9 acres
Other Non-Developable Areas 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.1
(Hydro coirridor, pipeline easments, road rights of way, daylightfng
triangles, road setbacks, sanitary treatment area, pump station)
Other Non-Netghboufiood Areas QO 0.0 0.2 ~ 0 5~.,
(Insfitutaional uses, major commercial centres,
arterial roads, seconary schools)
Future Residential, Commercal or Other Devebpment 0.0 0.0 `_ 1 0
Gross Residential Area GRA 3.1 ha 7.8 acres 10040. . 30.8 ha 76.1 acres 100%
Storm Water Management Polls 0.0 0.0 ~ D"~~ 2.9 Z2 9%
Parks aril Parkattes 0.0 0.0 0"~~ 4.4 10.8 i4`L
Nelghbourlwal Schools 0.0 0.0 0;. 20 0.0 OS„
Neighbourhood Commercial Uses 0.0 0.0 0"/ ~ 0 0 0.0 0%
Other Open Space, BuRers, Entry Features etc. 0.0 0.0 0°~6 i 0.0 0.1 0%
local Roads 0.7 22^~ 6 E 16.8 22
Net Realdantlal Area NRA 2.4 ha 5.9 acres 78•,: 16.7 ha 41.2 acres 54%
Total Units 3(10 units 350 0 units
Net Density (units dvided NRA) 12.6 unitsRta 5.t unrcs/a cre T ii units/ha 8.5 un{IS/sae
Gross Density (units divided by GRA) 9.8 units/ha 4.0 ur>flale rre 11.4 units/ha 4.6 unlWaae
t>rowth PWn Density (units divided by DGA) 9.8 unils/ha 4.0 unds4 cre 11.2 unit4ha 4.6 uNts/acre
Check 3 t 0.0 - 31.1 0.0
Unit Mix and Po ulation Estlmate _U_nit_s PPU Po ulatlon Units PPU Po ulatlon
_ _
Singe Dei ach d 30 ~ __ 86 178 2_98 630
Sen.[ Oetacoed 0 2 43 - 118 3.47 409
Row nou=v 0 Z92 - 54 3.17 171
Ai~anmentllmt U 1.84 - 0 1.85 -
ictel ..~ 2.83 86 350 3.17 1,111
Check from; xwe - -
Estimate of Work at Home
2001 Populaton 26,666 16,808
Work at Home Empoyment 1075 610
Rafio of Popula0on to Work at Home Employr~~nt 3.75 % 3.63
Estmated Work at Homa Employment (community elide raCio 3 417
applied to subdivision populatbn estimate)
Estimate of Commercial Em to ment
Commemial Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 25% 25%
Conversbn to square meVes of building space 0 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Comnrerolal Empoyment 0 0
Estmate of Institutlonal Em b ment
Institutional Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 30% 30
Conversbn to square meVes of building space 0 0
Area per Employee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Institutional Employment 0 0
Total Work at Home, Commercial and Insitutlonel Jobs 3 40
Total People and Jo
bs 88 1,151
y~
a~.~r.fr ~{~~
PtER'.~On~i J". ti..w'C~^1~.. .e.9.«^r'. I,: '~ Ql9Yrt}I~./~N4, j': ~_:.:. .~ .. is ... - --.~1„0 -~1F
H~mson Conaultlnp Ltd. January 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 83
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
SubdMsbn Name Eaat Had of Lot 31 Concession 4 Redline Revision Plan
Munidpaltty and Community Essa Essa
Development or Approval Status ?? ??
Total Land Area 22.0 ha 54.3 acres 37.8 ha 93.3 acres
Non-devabpable Area as Per Growth Plan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(welards, coastal wetlands, woodlands,
veNeylands, ANSIs, and wildlife and or fish
Growth Plan Greenfield Area (UGA 22.0 ha 54.3 acres 37.7 ha 93.3 acres
Other Non-Devebpable Areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(Hydro cokddor, pipeline aasments, road rights of way, daylfghting.
triangles, road setbacks, sanHary treatment area, pump statlon)
Other Non-Nelghbourhoal Areas 0.1 0.2 0.0 ~.~
(Institutebnal uses, major canmerolal centres,
arterial roads, seconary schools)
Future Residential, Commerdal or Other Development 0.6 1.5 n 0 0.0
Gross Residendal Area GRA 21.3 ha 52.8 acres 100% i 3.7.7 he 93.3 acres 100X,
Storm Water Management Ponds
2.0
4.9 l
- 9'?~~
1.5
3.P,
4%
Parks and Parkettes 1,0 2.5 SC-6 I 0.0 0.0 0°;S
Neighboudwod Sdwols 0.0 0.0 .. ~" 0 C 0.0 0%
Neighbourlwod Commerdal Uses 0.0 0.0 0"~" '! 0 0 OA 0
Other Open Space, Buffers, Entry Features etc. 6.4 15.9 30°6 i 71.7 28.9 31
local Roads 3.4 E 3 16 % 6.S 16.0 17%
Nat Resktentlal Area NRA 8.5 ha - 21.1 acres 40 % 16.1 ha 41.7 aces 48Y.
Total Units 162.0 units 365 0 units
Net Density (units divided NRA) 19.0 units/ha 7 7 urvtsJa cre 20 4 unHslha 8.3 unftslacre
Gross Density (units dvided by Gt2A) 7.6 units/ha 3.1 unitsia cra 9.8 units/ha 4,0 unfWarxe
Growth Plan DensRy (units divided by DGA) %.4 unllsfia 3.0 unksiacre 9.8 units/ha 4.0 unlLS/acre
Check 's20 0.0 37.8 0.0
Unit Mix and Po uladon Esdmate Units PPU Po uladon Unds PPU Po Watlon
_
a fJetec~ied X62 2 gg 483 181 2.98 539
Yi I]eta t,nd 0 a.47 - 112 3.47 389
Row I~~rnse G 3.17 - 76 3.17 241
rranmen, Unl[ _ '.B5 - 0 1.85 -
Tatar 1F.2 _.98 483 369 3.17 1,169
Check from Above t - -
Esdmate of Work at Home
_
_~- _
2001 Populaton
16,808
16,808
Work et Home Empbyment 610 610
Ratb of Population to Work at Home Employ, °- 3.63% 3.63%
Estlmated Wark ai Home Empbyment (comn~_... . .. - -~, io 18 42
applied tc subdivisbn populaton estimate)
Esdmate of Commercal Em Io ant _
Commemial I..and Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 25% 25%
Conversbn to square mebes of !wilding space 0 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estlmated Commerdal Empbyment 0 0
Esdmate of Insdtudonal Em o man!
Institutlonal Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 30 % 30%
Conversbn to square metres of building space 0 0
Area per Employee (m2) 40 40
Estlmated Institlrbonal Empbyment 0 0
Total Work at Home, Commercial and Inattudonal Jobs 18 42
Total People and Jobs 500 1.211
c~,~J
~fianFafrlt7r(PJ11~7~?7..,. I3~, >.._ „„,,.~.. ~'~'~ ~ •~~.~-n-•# ~:;.~I~'1~~. ti->~-
Hamaon Consuttln0 Ltd. January 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 84
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdivision Name South Simcoe Part of South HaN Lot 27 Concession 2
Municipality and Community Total o! Sele~r.lon v± Pla n, tClearviaW
Devebpment p Approval Status ; T?
~
Total Land Area 359.8 ha A89.1 acres I 17.8 ha 43.4 scree
Non-devebpable Area as Per Growth Plan
`: r
39.' I
~I 3.4
8.4
(vrelands, coastal vretlands, woodlands, I
vetteylands, ANSIs, aM wlkilHe and p fish
Growth Plan Greenfield Ares (DGA) 344.0 ha 65o.D acres 14.1 ha 35.0 acres
Other Non-Developable Areas a 6 '~ 1 7. 0.1 D.3
(Hydro colnidor, pipeline easments, road rights of way, daylightirg
Wangles, mad setbacks, sanitary treatment area, pump station)
Other NorrNeighbourhood Areas I
0.£,
S
0.1
~.~
(institutaional uses, major commemial centres,
arterial mods, seconary schools)
Future Residentai, Commercial or Other Devebpment 8 ', 2& 0 0 0 0.0
Gross Residential Area GRA 330.7 ha 817.2 acres 100% 13.9 ha 34,5 acres 100%
Storm Water Management Ponds '. 8 ' d~l 7 5% 0.7 L / 5%
Parks and Parkettes 1 a 3 55 1 4` ~ 0.6 1.5 4
NelghbourMod Sdrools 41 '.0 t 179 0.0 0.0 0%
Neighbourhood Commercial Uses 3 9 .,. _ ~,~ 5.5 18%
Other Open Space, Buffers, Entry Features etc. 2' i 53 0 7~_ 0.0 0.0 D
Local Roads 75 3 186.8 23'~ 3 1 7.6 22%
Net Residential Area NRA 193.4 ha 477.8 acres 58 °,~; 7.4 ha 18.2 acres 53°/.
Total Units x,291 0 r;nits 161 0 units
Net Density (units divided NRA) 222 unitslha 9.0 uni:e:acre .21.9 unks/ha 8.8 unlLS/acra
Gmss Density (units divided by GRA) ' 3 0 urnts~na 5.3 an'slacre 11.5 units/ha 4.7 un'rts/ape
Growth Plan Density (units dWWed by DGA) " 25 a%s4ra 5.0 :,nr=;asre 11.4 unttsPoa 4.6 units/ape
Check :759 °, 0.0 17.6 0.0
Unit MI><and Po ulatbn Estlmate _ Units PPU Population Units PPU Po ulatlon
51:~*ie Detached 325? '0,418 100 2.87 287
Semi Getached , 4;2 1 A41 0 2.71
" Ro•.v House ~ 201 59P, 61 2.36 143
Ananmen' Une ;
i 411 732 0 1.86
Total 4,291 3.1 13,189 161 2.67 430
Check from AI>UVe
I
Estmate of Work at Home '
~-~-~~~_-
2001 Populaton 13,796
Work at Home Empbyment 925
Ratlo of Populetlon to Work at Home Employment 6.70%
Estimated Work at Home Empbyment (community viide ialio Work et Home Empioym en: 539 29
applied to subdlvfsbn populatbn estimate)
Estimate of Commercial Em o ant
Commercial Land Area (ha) 2.22
Coverage 25%
Conversbn io square meUes of bulkiing space 5.550
Area per Employee (m2)
i 40
Estimated Commercal Empbyment Commerstai Er,pioyrnen t 242 139
EeUmate of Insdtutlonal Em b ment
Institutional Land Area (ha) 0
Coverage 30%
Conversbn to square meUea d bulkfing space 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40
Estlmeled Instilu5onal Employment insntulionai F_mploymen: 3G7 0
Total Work at Home, Commerdsl and InsRUtlonal Jobs Teal Employmerd 1,OBH 168
Total People and Jobs Total People and Jobs 14.277 598
~......... ~.,_ .. p. I "D .,~,.
y~, ;op... and .lon_ nvidod 67 .,r A~ ~rowthPanT enslty 4150 ,.,. L_~;„.. _--_ ,
FNrtmon consultlng ua. Janaery moe
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 85
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdlvfslon Name Grand Clearvlew Estates PaR of Lot 23 Concession 2
Munidpellty and CommuMty Clearview Clearvlew
Devebpment or Approval Status 77
Total Land Area 728 ha 179.4 attea 13.5 ha 33.3 acres
Non-devebpable Area as Par Growfh Plan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(welaMs, coastal wetlands, woodlarxfs,
valleylands, ANSIs, end wildlife and or fish
Growth Plan Greenifeld Area (OGA 72.6 ha 178.4 awes 13.5 ha 33.3 acres
Other NorrDevebpable Areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
(Hydro coirrldor, pipeNne easments, road dghts of way, daylghting
triangles, road setbacks, santtary treatment area, pump stalion)
Other Non-Nelghboudwod Areas 0:3 0.7 2.4 5,g
(Institutaional uses, major commercbl canVes,
arterial roads, seconary schools)
Future Residential, Commerdal or Other Devebpment 19.4 47.9 0.2 0.4
Groea Resldentlal Area GRA 52.9 ha 130.7 awes 100 % 10.9 nH 26.6 sc res 100Ye
Storm Water Management Ponds 3.0 7.5 6`Vb 0 B ,. 8%
Parks and Parkettes 2.3 5.6 a`t 0.0 0.0 092
Nelghlwwfiood Schools 0.0 0.0 0°:~ D.O 0.0 0%
Neighbourtwod Commeroial Uses 0.0 0.0 0.0~ 0.0 0
Other Open Specs, Buffers, Entry Features etc. 0.0 OA u ~ 0.0 0.0 0%
Local Roads 16.8 -~? 4 32% !.0 2.5 9%
Het Resldentlal Area NRA 30.8 ha 76.1 acres 589: 9.0 ha 12.3 awes 83!K
Total Units 1,056.0 units 11a.C ocis
Net Density (units divided NRA) 34.3 unlts/ha 1~;9 ucl[slacre 12 6 unds/ha 6.1 unlts/ecre
Gross Density{untts divided by GRA) 20.0 units/ha 8.1unlts~ncre 10.5 unks/ha 4.2 unitslacre
Growth Plan Densky (units divided by DGA) 14.5 unlts/ha 5.9 ureC;/acre 8.5 units/ha 3.4 urUts/acre
Check 72 6 0.0 13.5 0.0
Unk Mls and Po ulatlon Eatlmate Units PPU Po ulatlon Unka PPU Po ulatlon
__
- _ e De:racFed 29a 2 Ni 844 114 2.87 327
_ ~ emu. 142 2.71 385 0 2.71 -
- ....
,~~e 56a 2.35 1,302 0 2.35 -
~_ ~ : - Unl! 56 1 86 423 0 1.86 -
1056 251 2,653 114 2.87 327
Check from - -
Eatlmete of Work at Home __ ,
2001 Populeton 13,796 13,796
Work at Home Empbyment 925 925
Ratb of Population to Work at Home Employ-~enc - 6.70% 6.70%
Estimated Work at Home Empbyment (communiy .y~ide rtlo 178 22
applied to subdivision population estimate)
Eatlmate of CommerGal Em to mant
Commercial Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 25% 25%
Conversbn to square mares of buiding space 0 0
Area per Empbyea (m2) 40 40
Estimated Commercal Empbyment 0 0
Eatlmata of Inatltutlonal Em to ment
InsU[utionel Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 30% 30%
Conversbn to square metres of building space 0 0
Area per Empbyea (m2) 40 40
Estimated InstftuUonel Empbymant 0 0
Tatal Work at Home, CommerGal and InsRutlonal Jobe 178 22
Total People and Jobs 1.631 349
~PJarr nd Jvba .. ,. .-1 r'i~*. ~i~r: .t' ~M. ,rr. a:...
H~rtwoo Conaulrina 11d. .7anusry Mee
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 86
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
---
Subdivisbn Name
Part of Lat 41 Concession 8
Tepco Hoidinga
Municipality and Community Cdlingwood CoiRngwood
Deveopment or Approval Status Approved
Totet Land Area 25.1 ha 62.0 acres 28.8 ha 70.7 acres
Non-devebpeble Area as Per Gn.~wth Plan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(welands, coastal wetlands, woodlands,
va0eylands, ANSIs, end wildlife and or fish
Growth Plan Greenfleid Aroa (DGA) 25.1 ha 62.0 acres 28.6 ha 70.7 acres
Other Non-Developable Areas 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
(Hydro cokridor, plpeGne easments, road rights of way, daylighdng
triangles, road setbacks, sankary treatment area, pump statlon)
Other Non-Neighbourhood Areas 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9
(Instltutabnal uses, major commercial centres,
arterial roads, seconary schools)
Future Residential, Commercal or Other Development 0.0 0.0 n 0 0 0
Gross Residentlal Area GRA Z5.1 ha 82.0 acres 100",~~ '~. 28.2 ha 69.7 acres 100•/.
Storm Water Managemerrt Ponds 1.4 3.4 ., a 1.5 3.6 5%
Parks and Parkettes 1.4 3.4 676 ~, 1.4 3.6 _ ,
Neghbourfood Schrwls 0.0 OA ..., 0 0 0.0 ,rlo
Neighbourhood Commercial Uses 0.2 0.5 1'-; 0.0 0.0 0%
Other Open Space, Butlers, Entry Features eta 2.8 7.0 17 ".o 0.0 0.0 0%
Local Roads 3.9 97 t6°h 5.4 15.9 23%
Net Rasldentlal Area NRA 15.4 ha 38.0 acres 67°I. 18.9 ha 48.7 acres 87%
Total Units 419.0 units _ _ 37a p untls
Net Density (untts divided NRA) 272 units/ha 1 i.0 unus'acre ~ '~.98 units/ha 8A untts/acre
Gross Density (units divided by GRA) 16.7 untts/ha 6.8 u~!a ua 13.3 untts/he 5.4 units/aae
GrowOt Plan Density (units divided by DGA) '~ fi.7 unltsRta 6.8 untlda rre 13.1 un@s/ha 5.3 units/acre
Check 2s 1 0.0 28.6 0.0
Unit Mix and Populatlon Estimate ~
- Units PPU
-- Po u{adon Untta PPU Po latlon
5inyle De:~eGed
139 2 63 _
--
366
374 2.63
984
Scm~ Ceta~r,ed a 196 - 0 2.g6 -
Rcw bor,se D 2.35 - 0 2.35 -
Ap~rtmentUnr. i t8C 1.fy7 440 0 1.57 -
- Tote; 413 7.92 805 374 2.63 984
Check from Above -
Estimate of Work at Home _ __
2001 Populaton 16,039 16,039
Work at Home Empbyment 505 505
Ratlo of Population to Work at Home Empty r:en! 3.75% 3.15%
Estimated Work at Home Empbyment (community wine r~:Lr 25 31
eppifed to subdivision population estlmate)
Estimate of CommerGal Em to mart!
Commercial Land Area (ha) 0,2 0
Coverage 25% 25
Conversion to square metres of building space 500 0
Area parEmpbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Commercial Employment 13 D
Eatlmale of Institutional Em b mart!
Instttutbnal Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 30% 30%
Converson to square metres of building space 0 0
(Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
LEsimated Institutional Empbyment 0 0
ITotal Work at Home, Commercial and Insitutlonal Jobs 38 31
'Total People and Jobs 843 1,015
~teovrthl;Derp)it~r[/''~6blebtV~diyi6)~li, -;-. J: ~o~'tlrl~en~sn~tir . .` ,' -, .' :-3<S: `"`l aro+rthf~iaR. .: ;: ',•_3 r: '.1
liamaon Conaulring Ltd. Jmu 2Daa
M'
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 87
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
SutxNrvWon Name Part of N Lot 44 & S Lot 45 Concession 11 Wasaga Beach Village
MunicfpelUy and Commudry Cdlingwood Wasage Beach
Deveopment or Approval Status
Total Land Area 8.5 ha 20.9 acres 20.4 ha 50.3 acres
Non-developable Area as Per Growth Plan 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.6
(welands, coastal wetlands, woodlands,
vaNeylands, ANSIs, and wildl'rfe and or fish
Growth Plan Greenfield Area (DGA) 8.5 ha 20.9 acres 18.9 ha 48.7 sues
Other Non-Developable Areas 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0
(Hydro colnidor, pipegne easments, road rights of way, daylighUng
Mangles, mad setbacks, sanRary treatment area, pump station)
Other Non-NeigFtbourhood Areas 0.0 0.0 0.2 0 9
(insdlutabnal uses, major commercial centres,
arterial roads, seconary sctrools)
Future Residential. Commercal or Other Development 0.0 0.0 ~ P 2.1
Gross Residential Area GRA 8.5 ha 20.9 acres 100°~' t7.6 ha 44.0 acres 100X
Storm Water Management Ponds 0.0 0.0 0°6 11 2.6 6%
Parks and Parkettes 0.0 QO 0°% 0.0 0.0 0`m
NelghbourMod Schools 0.0 OA ,~^a. O.C 0.0 ~!
Neighboudbod Commercial Uses 09 0.0 U°/ ! OA `~' 0.0 ~ 0%
Other Open Space, BuRers, Entry Features etc. 0.0 0.0 0 ti 1.2 3.0 7
Local Roads 22 `~ 5 26% 3i1 9.4 2t%
Net ResMentlal Area NRA 6.2 ha 15.4 acres T4•i; 1 t.7 ha ""`~ 29.0 acres 86°/.
Total Units 59.0 units 195 a urv.'s
Net Density (units divided NRA) 9.5 unUsltta :lb. uniis'acra ', '. ~ 6 units/ha 6.7 unfWacre
Gross Density (units dived by GRA) ZO units/he 2.8 vnita7aae 10.9 units/ha 4.4 uNWaue
Growth Plan Densky (units divided try DGA) 7.0 unlts/ha 2.8 unftalacra 10.3 unds/ha 4.2 uniWacre
Check B 5 0.0 20.4 0.0
Unit Mix and Population Estimate ( Units PPU Populaton Units PPU Po'ulatlon
--
_. _e De.ached
59 __~..
155
195 24
468
_ il Detected 0 2.96 - 0 2.48 -
Row house Q 2 35 - 0 2.29 -
Ar~r'Jnent Unr. p 1 SY - 0 2.02 -
Tuta~ 59 2.63 155 195 2.40 468
Check from AMve -
Estimate of Work at Home
2001 Populaton 16,039 12,419
Work at Home Empoyment 505 380
Ratb of Population to Work at Home Employ~~en! 3.15 % 3.06%
Estimated Work at Home Employment (communry vide ratio 5 14
applied to subdivision populatbn estlmate)
Estimate of Commerdal Em to ment
Commemial Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 25% 25%
Conversion to square metes of building space 0 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Commercial Empoyment 0 0
Estimate of Inatkttdonal Em ment
Instltutional land Area (ha) D 0
Coverage 30% 30%
Converson to square metres of twflding space 0 0
Mee per Employee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Instttutronal Empoyment 0 0
Total Work at Home, Commerdal snd Iraitudonal Jobs 5 t4
Total People and Jabs 160 482
H~mson Conauking Ltd. Januvy 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 88
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdivision Name Ansley Grove Sunnldale Tralla Community
Munidpaldy and Community Wasaga Beach Wasaga Beach
Deveopment or Approval Status Approved
Total Land Area 2.8 ha 8.4 acres 59.5 ha 147.0 acres
Non-devebpeble Area as Per Growth Plan 0,0 0.0 9.9 24.6
(welands, coastal wetlaMs, woodlands,
vaNeylands. ANSis, and wildlife and or fish
Growth Plan Greenfield Area (DGA) 2.8 ha 6.4 acres 49.8 ha 122.5 acres
Other Non-Devabpable Areas 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2
(Hydro coirridor, pipeline easments, road rights of way, daylghting
triangles, road setbacks, sanitary treatment area, pump statbn)
Other NorrNeightxwrfwod Areas QO QO 1 A ^ 3;a..
(Institutaional uses, major cornmercial centres,
ertedal roads, seconary schools)
Future Residential. Commercial or Other Development 0.0 0.0 G 3 0.6
Gross Reslderrdal Area GRA 2.8 ha 8.4 acres 100"/" `48.3 ha 119.3 acres t00Y
Storm Water Management Ponds 0.3 0.6 '~. n°~o 1.6 4.D 3%
Perks and Parkettes 0.2 0.5 N°+, 2.5 6.2 S",o.
Neghbourhood Schools O.D 0.0 OSr 'U:0 0.0 i!
Neghbourtwod Commercial Uses 0.0 0.0 D% 1 0
I 4,9 4%
Other Open Space, BuBers, Entry Features etc. 0.2 0.4 7°° 0.0 0.0 0
Local Roads 0.8 '~ 4 21"~;~ `2.3 30,2 25%
Net Realdential Area NRA 1.4 ha 3.4 acres 535; 30.0 ha 74.0 acres 82N.
Total Units 22.0 unRs 557 0 untts
Net Density (units dNided NRA) 15.9 unit.Uha 6.4 unnslacro ?ti6 unitslhe 7.5 untts/acre
Gross Density (ands dNWed by GRA) 8.5 unlts/ha 3.4 unCa'acre 11.5 units/ha 4.7 units/acre
Growth Plan Densely (units dNided by DGA) A.5 units/ha 3.4 unilsla:ra 11,2 units/ha 4.5 uniWaere
Check 2 6 0.0 59.6 0.0
i
Unll Mlx and Po utadon Estimate
Units PPU
Populatton
Untts PPU
Po uladon
N De'a J-ed~ ~~ 2.-1 53 430 2.4 1,032
Send Detached h c 48 - 44 2.48 109
flow house 2.29 - 36 2.29 82
Aaar!ment tJnlt 0 2.E~ - 47 2.02 95
Totai « 2.40 53 557 2.37 1,319
Check hom Atxivr? -
Esdmate of Work at Home _ _ _
2tA11 Popuaaton 12,419 12,419
Work at Home Empoyment 380 380
Rath oT Populetbn to Work at Home Employr~en, 3.06% 3.06
Estimated Work at Home Employment (community ~midc rata - 2 40
applied to subdNision population estlmata)
Esdmate of Commercial Em to ment _
Commercial Land Area (ha) 0 1.99
Coverage 25 % 25
Converson to square metres of bulkfing space 0 4,975
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Commerraal Empoyment 0 124
Esdmate of Instltudonal Em to ment
Institutional Land Area (ha) 0 1
Coverage 30% 30%
Conversion to square metres of !wilding space 0 1,950
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Institutional Employment 0 49
Total Work at Home, Commercial and Insdutlonal Joha 2 213
Total People and Jobs 54 1,532
fQlitiWtkPF7'ttleCtiHyjC~aGpHahii"~p6r`pkidld~'~y13".;.:. 4tf~wtFr,PCIRt7]rrq~yr' ~.. ..Tt ~. Y~' , .~'-t .. 1,rF" ;',`;` ,
liemena can..t6ne ud. J.naery zoos
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 89
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdivision Name W Half Lot 11, Concession 5 Northwest Had of Lot 1, Concession 1
Munfdpaliry and Community Oro-Medonte Estate Residential Severe Estate Residential
Development or Approval Status Approved
Total land Area 9.0 ha 22.3 acres 14.2 ha 35.2 acres
Non-devebpable Area as Per Growth Plan 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0
(welards, coastal wetlands, woodlands,
vaHeylands, ANSIs, and wildl'rfe and or fish
Growth Plan Greandeld Area (DGA) 8.0 he 19.8 acres 14.2 ha 35.2 acres
Other NorrDevelopable Areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(Hydro cokridor, pipeline easrnents, road rights of way, daylighUng
triangles, road setbacks, sanitary treatment area, pump statron) ~-
Outer NorrNeighbourttocd Areas 0.0 0.0 0 2 0.4
(Instltutaional uses, maJor commercial centres,
arterial roads, saconary schools)
Future Reskfentlal, Commercal or Other Development 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gross Residential Area GRA 8.0 ha 19.8 acres t00Yo 14.1 ha 3d.7 acres 100%
Storm Water Management Ponds 1.1 2.7 ~ a°~b 0.4 1.0 3%
Parks and Parkettes OD 0.0 0% 0.0 QO 0%
Neighbourhood Schools 0.0 O.L'
~ 0.0 0.0 0%
Neighbourfwod Commercal Uses 0.0 0. -~ 0%
~ 0.0 0.0 0%
Other Open Space, Butlers, Entry Features etc. 0.0 0.1 1% 0.1 0.2 1%
Local Roads O7 1.7 ~'-~ 1.3 3.2 9%
Nat Residentlal Area NRA
8.1 ha __ _
15.2 acres
77 % a
~ 12.3 ha
30.3 acres
87%
Total Units 15.0 units ' 27.0 units
Nat Densely (units divkted NRA) 2A untts/ha LO ;:nltsea::re 22 uniWha 0.9 units/acre
Gross Density (units divided by GRA) j 1.9 unlts/ha 0.8 un{Wa-r9 1.9 uniWha 0.8 units/acre
Growth Plan Densely (units divided by DGA) 1.9 unitsfia 0.8 unitslacre 1.9 uniWha 0.8 units/acre
Check 9A 0.0 14.2 0.0
Unk Mlx and Po ulatlon Estlmate . Units PPU Po ulatbn Unds PPU Po uladon
Single L'e:arned ~ '~!, ~ 42 27 2.68 72
_. SP,nTI Uetachec 0 3 - 0 2.71 -
- Row riouse .. 27 - 0 2.15 -
Apa=.^~er' Vr~.• C 2.63 - 0 L96 -
1 t 5 277 42 27 2.68 72
Check from ~.: - -
Eadmate of Work at Home
_,
2001 Popuaaion
18,315
11,135
Work at Fbme Empoyment 1195 610
Ratio oT Population to Work at Home Employrnen[ 6.52% SAB%
Estimated Work at Horne Employment (commur"~~ ~mide ratio 3 4
applied to subdivision population estimate)
Eadmate of CommerWal Em o mant _
_
Commercial Land Ares (ha)
0
0
Coverage 25% 25%
Converson to square metres of building space 0 0
Prea per Employee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Commerdal Employment 0 0
Eadmate of Inatdutbnal Em to ment
Institutional land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 30 % 30%
Conversion to square metres d building space 0 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Institutonal Employment 0 0
Total Work at Homa, Commercial and Inaitutlonal Jobs 3 4
Total People and Jobs 44 76
P~~'~op~I;rir~ttiWi~~%.w`~~ ~!~{~+?`~.x"'"~~,.!~'~f. `, h , vrw;'.' ~.'$~'~ k~~. <
Fiarrraon ConsuFtlnO LLd. January 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 90
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdivlsbn Name Part of Lots 18 d 19, Concession 3 Copeland Woods
Munldpelky and Community Tay Tiny Estate Residential
Development or Approval Status
Total Land Area 13.7 ha 33.8 acres 17.5 ha 43.2 acres
Non-devebpable Area es Per Growth Plan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(welaMs, coastal wetlands, woodlands,
valleylands, ANSIs, end wIIdIHe and or Osh
Growth Plan Greanfleld Area (UGA) 13.7 he 33.8 acres 17.5 ha 43.2 acres
Other Non-Developable Areas 1.0 2.4 0.0 0.0
(Hydro aNrrldor, pipeline easments, road rights of way, daylightirg
triangles, road setbacks, sankary treatment area, pump station)
Other Non-Neghbourhood Areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(InsUtutabnal uses, major commemlal centres,
arterial roads, seconary schools)
Future Residential, Commercal or Other Deveopment 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
Gross ResldeMlal Area GRA 12.8 ha 31.1 acres 100% 17.5 ha 43.2 acres 1 ~%
Strom Water Management Ponds 0.0 0.0 0°b ~ 0.0 OA1 0%
Parks and Parkettes OA 0.0 0'n. 0.0 0.0 0%
Neighboarhood Schools 0.0 QO ~' G",u ~ -. 71.0 0.:; 0%
Neighbourhood Commercal Uses 0.0 0.0 ., ;. - 0.0 0.0 0%
Other Open Space, Buffers, Entry Features etc. 0.0 0.0 0'a 5.5 13.6 31 %
Local Roads 2.9 23% '-0 2.6 6%
Net Residential Area NRA 9.7 ha 20.0 acros 77Y 10.9 ha 27.0 acres 83X
Total Units 145.0 units 13 0 w~.lts
Nat Density (units divided NRA) 14.9 units/ha 6 0 nnG,acre ',, t7 untts/ha 0.7 unhs/a cre
Gross Density (units divided by GRA) 71.5 unltsfia 4.7 wrt=iacsa 1.1 units/ha 0.4 unks/acre
Growth Plan Densky (units divided by DGA) I, s n.6 units/ha 4.3 uNWacre 1.7 unksfia 0.4 unks/acre
i
Check 1_ _ _ 13 7 0.0 17.5 0.0
Unit Miz and Po ulation Estimate Units PPU Population Units PPU Po latlon
91nye Deiad~~ed 145 2 i% 377 19 2.55 48
Semi Letac~r 0 2 3 - 0 2.3 -
Row hrusr 0 2.5 - 0 2.5 -
~~.tmentUrn _ 2.;.9 - 0 2.18 -
Tofal 145 2.60 377 19 2.55 48
Check from Ahove ~ -
Estimate of Work at Home
2001 Populaton 9,762 9,035
Work at Home Empoyment 405 475
Ratio of Population to Work at Homa Employioen: 4.42% 5.26
Estimated Work at Home Employment (communty vide ratio 17 3
applied to subdivfsbn population estimate)
Estlmata of Commercial Em b ant
Commemial Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 25 % 25%
Conversbn to square metres of building space 0 0
Area perEmpbyee (m2) 40 40
Es6meted Commercal Empoyment 0 0
Estimate of Institutional Em b ment
InsUtuSonal Land Area (ha) 0 0
Coverage 30°h 30
Conversion to square metres of twfkling space 0 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estlmatad InstltuUonal Employment 0 0
Total Work et Homa, Commercal and InaHutlonal Jobs 17 3
Total People and Jobs 394 51
~rpit;fl4tlsMYRF+~~bY=!'AFB;, ,~€3%'~ ~'1 ,r'. I4.' , ; 4lpve6t`iy~ ° ~ ~ »,. _ .. k....~.:,
Flem~on Consultln0 Ltd. January 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 91
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdivision Name Bayport Village Beltlsle Heights
Munidpality and Community Midland Penetanguishene
Devebpment or Approval Status
Total Land Area 24.3 ha 60.0 acres 26.4 ha 65.2 acres
Non-devebpable Arse as Per Growth Pian 0.0 0.0 O.ll 0.0
(welands, coastal wetlaMs, woodlands,
vaNeylands, ANSIS, arrd wildl'rfe and or Ush
Growth Plan Greenfield Area (DGA) 24,3 ha 60.0 acres 28.4 ha 65.2 acres
Other Non-Developable Areas 0.1 0.1 O.D 0.0
(Hydro coinidor, pipeAne easments, road rights of way, da}4ighting
triangles, road setbacks, sanitary treatment area, pump station)
Other NarNeightwurhoorl Areas 0:0 0.0 0.0 00
(InsUtutaional uses, major commercial centres,
arterial mods, seconary sctwols)
Future Residential, Commerdal or Other Devebpment 0.1 0.3 f 3 15.6
Gross Residential Area GRA 24.1 ha 59.5 acres t00R -20.1 ha 49.5 acres 10016
Stone Water Management Ponds 0.8 1.9 s?e 0 0 0.0 0
Parks and Parkettes 1.9 4.6 B'm 1.3 3.2 6°;
Neighbourhood Schools 0.0 OA 0',~ 0.0 0.0 0%
Neighbourhood Commerdal Uses 1.7 4.2 7°.o i 0.0 Vii:, 0.0 0%
Other Open Space, Buffers, Entry Features etc. t.0 2.6 4°n !. 0.1 0.1 0%
Local Roads 2.9 __ 12% _ 5.1 12.7 26
Net Residential Area NRA 15.6 ha 39.1 acres 66Ye 13.6 ha ~` 33.5 acres 8876
Total UnltS 567.0 units 168.6 unis
Net Density (units divided NRA) 35.6 unitsRta ', 4.5 uni~sla rre ~ ".9 unltsTha 5.6 uniLS/eCre
Gross Density (units dNided by GRA) 23.5 units/ha 9.5 un'rs: a cre 9.4 unitsfia 3.6 urrits/aae
GrowN Poan Densky (units divided by DGA) X3,4 unitsAta 9.5 uniWacra 7.1 unitsRla 2.9 unNs/acre
Check _:13 0.0 26.4 0.0
Unit Mlx and Po ulatbn Estlmete Units PPU Poputatlon Unks PPU Po ulatlon
Single L`e~.a;:hed FN7 2 5 156 168 2.79 525
Semi lleteched 0 2A - 0 2.83 -
Rowhrusa ".D 1.86 329 0 1.69 -
AparmentUnlt t ~2 634 0 1.74 -
To:a~. __ ~ 1.97 1,119 188 2.79 525
Check from FtrwF ! ~ -
Estlmete of Work at Home
__
2001 Populaton
16,214
6,316
Work at Home Empoyment 365 230
Ratio oT Population to Work at Home Employment 2.25% 2.77%
Estlmated Work at Home Employment (community wide ratio 26 15
appUed [o subdivision populatbn estimate)
Estlmete of Commerdal Em o meet
Commercial Land Area (ha) 1.26 0
Coverage 25% 25%
Conversion W squam meVes of lwliding space 3,150 0
Ares per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Commerdal Empoyment 79 0
Estlmete of Irrotltutional Em to meet
Institutional Land Area (ha) 1 0
Coverage 30 % 30%
Converson to square meVes of bulMing space 1,620 0
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40 40
Estimated Institutbnal Employment 41 0
Total Work at Home, Commerclaf and Inakutlonal Join 144 15
Total People arW Jobs 1,263 539
PtMF~a~ar~q?: 4~'t{~3.~t5.3 - _ f+~'~+14rr~? ";:.. '.;4?,E.., .~ tkayMi!!fYkf . :'~~,~1;~ .' •j
Fiarnaon Consualnp Ud. January 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 0$-012 Page 92
Simcoe County Growth Plan
Density Analysis
Subdlvisbn Name Daft Plen of 3ubdivislon Part o/ Lot 8
Munidpalky and Community Clearv'rew
Developrrrent or Approval Status
Total Land Area 39.1 ha 96.8 acres
Non-devebpable Area as Per Growth Plan 0.0 0.0
(wetands, coastal wetlands, woodlands,
vaHeylands, ANSIs, and wildlife and w fish
Grawfh Plan Greenfield Area (DGA 39.1 ha 96.6 acres
Other Non-Developable Areas 3.B 9.5
(Hydro colrridor, pipeAne easments, road rights of way, daylighting
triangles, road setbacks, sanftary treatment area, pump station)
Other Non-Neighbourhood Areas 0.0 0.0
(Institutaional uses, major commercial centres,
arterial roads, seconary schools)
Future Resbential, Commercal or Other Devabpment 1.2 3.0
Gross Residential Area GRA 34.0 ha 84.1 acres 100%
Storm Water Management Polls 2.2 5.5
Parks and Parkettes 2.5 6.3 /'--~
Neighbourhood Schools 0.0 0.0 ...~
Neighbourhood Commercial Usas 0.0 0.0 Os6-
Other Open Space, Buffers, Entry Features eic. 0.7 1.7 P`~
Local Roads 3.2 / 9 g'-~ ~~
Net Residential Area NRA 25.4 tra 62.7 acres 75%
Total Units 496.0 units
Nei Density (units divided NRA) 19.6 unlts/ha 7.9 unla'a ue
Gross Density (units divided by GRA) j 14.6 units/ha 5.9 urliLS/a cre
Growth Plan Densky (units divided by DGA) " 2.7 units/ha 52 un(tdacre
Check 3S! 1 0.0 .
Unit Mix and Po elation Estlmate ~~ Unlts PPU Po elation
Si; r~lr- Deta:a~ed; 108 2E7 310
Rov; i-.:,~se s'' 2.35 226
Apamnant Unl', 294 t86 547
To1a~. 45B 2.17 1,082
Check from Ahrve -
EaUmate of Work at Home __
2001 Populaton 13,796
Work at Home Empoyment 925
Ratio of Population to Work et Home Empby:.ent 6.70 %
Estimated Work at Home Employment (comnwolty v+ice ~a~tio 73
applied to subdivisbn population estimate)
Estimate of Commercial Em to ant
Commercial Land Area (ha) 0
Coverage 25
Conversbn to square metres of buikfing space 0
Fvea per Empbyee (m2) 40
EsGma[ad Commercal Empoyment 0
Estimate of Inetl/utional Em o ment
Institutional Land Area (ha) 0
Coverage 30
Conversbn to square metres of building space 0
Area per Empbyee (rt¢) 40
Estlmated Instftullonal Empoyment 0
Total Work at Home, Commercial and Insltutianel Jobs 73
Total People and Jabs 1,1
5
5
PFaa?;l'rrtrafiT fPeogi+tdt¢dbfii6DW1d1ittkY
. _. ~K v ` :: ,
§1
,
~+:
:;
Ftamaon ConsulUnO Ltd. Janwry 2008
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 93
Simcoe County Carowth P-an
Density Anatysis
Subdivision Name North Simcoe County Total Simcoe County Area
Munidpality and Community Tctal of Selecion of Pra m Total of SelecBon of Plaru
Development a Approval Status
Totat Land Area 392.4 ha 969.6 acres 752.2 ha 1 858.7 acres
Non-davebpaWe Area as Per Growth Plen " S.N ., ~.. 31.7 78.2
(wetanda, coastal wetlands, woodlands, j
veHaylands, ANSIs, and wildlife and or fish
Growth Plan Greenfield Area (DGA) 376.6 830.5 720.8 1,780.5
Other Non-Developable Areas ~ 5.3 13.0 9.8 24.3
(Hydro coirrldor, p~akne easments, road rights of way, daylighting i
triangles, road setbacks, sandary treatment area, pump station)
Other Non-Neighbourhood Areas i
~ 4S
11 '
S t
12.6
(Inslitutabnal uses, major commercial centres,
arterial roads, seconary schools) '
Future Residential, Commensal or Other Development 28.4 70.2 35.5 90.2
Gross Residentlal Area GRA 338.4 ha 836.3 acres 100°~6 669.2 ha
_
_. 1 853.5 acres 100Y.
Stone Water Management Ponds I
~ 14 8 36-6 4% 32.9 81.3 5
Parks and Parkettes ~ 14.1 34.3 4% 28.5 7T' 3 4
Neighbourtood Schools ~ 0.0 0 0 ., .. 4.1 1 C 1 1 %
Nelghbowfiood Commercial Uses ~ v.' 15.' 2'/ 10.0~~' ~ 24.7 1
Other Open Space, Buffers, Entry Features etc. ~ 11 7 28.8 35:. 33.4 82.4 5%
Local Roads 67.1 '65.0
__ 20% 142a
.._____. 351.8 21%
Net Residential Area NRA j
224.6 h• 555.0 acres 66°~~ 418,D ha 1 032.8 acres 82Y.
Total Units 4.4'8.0 units 6,IOL0 un~s
Nat Density (units drvkied NRA) '.9 7 unl!eiha 6.0 ~nlts,aue JO 8 unitslha 8.4 units/aae
Gross Density (units divided by GRA) 13.0 ::nis;ha 5.3 unis~acre 13.0 unlts/ha 5.3 units acre
Growth Plan DensHy (units divided by DGA) '.'.7 enlsrha a 7 unlsiacre 12.1 unHs/ha 4.9 units/acre
Check 3924 0.0 752.2 0.0
__ _
Unit Mlx and Po ulaNon Estmate Unit
s
PPU Po ulation Units PPU Po ulatlon
_
_ e Dena: had _
_ _ _
_
~ 229 6.045 5,546 3.0 16,463
- ~i De:arne:! 136 494 608 3.2 1,935
Fow huu=e 924 2.083 1,126 2.4 2,681
{,r.~r.ment knit i,017 1.838 i, 1,428 1.8 2,569
Total ~ 4,416 2.37 10,469 8,707 2.7 23,648
Check from A
Estimate of Work at Home
2001 Populaton ~ - - Ne
Work at Home Empbyment Ne
Rath of Population to Work et Home Empbyr~en: 4.33
Estimated Work at Home Empbyment (commuN`y wide ratio ' Vv'ork et Home Emptoyr aent 484 1,023
applied to subdivlsbn populaton estimate)
Estimate of Commercial Em to meet
Commercial Lend Araa (ha) _____
10
Coverage 25%
Converson to square metres of building space 23,873
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40
Estmated Commerdal Empbyment Comi-~ercal Er-rploynie nt 354 597
Estimate of InsfNutlonal Em to meet
Inst(tutional Land Area (ha) 5
Coverage 30%
Conversion to square metres of buNding space 15,831
Area per Empbyee (m2) 40
EsBmated Instftutfonai Employment ins_ufona: Employrnen l 89 396
Total Work H Home, Commercial and Insltutlonal Jobs To:;;i Bnploycient 92b 2.016
Total People and Jobs Taal. People and Jobs '.'.,387 25.684
Growth Plan Density
... _, ~ -
~'11f11~~4rid~3ebY ,._ _ .~-~g_ .
Grown Pac. Dens~.ty
50
All Pions
36
Fi~rmon Conauakrp Ltd. .hnusry 1009
Schedule I County Officers CO 08-012 Page 94
APPENDIX 1
Estimate of County-wide Density and Intensification Targets
HEMSON
Schedule 1 County Officers CO 08-012 Page 95
Growth Plan Intensification in Simcoe County Planning Area
Larger and Older
Communities Rural
Communities Municipal
Simcoe County Barrie
and Orillia Simcoe
County Area
Unit Growth 2016-2031 27,900 20,200 48,1 0O 12,200 60,300
Share Intensification 40.0% 20.0% 31 .6`?~, 40.0% 33,3%
Units Through Intensification 11,100 4,100 1 >,Z~~O 4,900 20,100
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2008
Note: The Census period beginning mid-2016 is used as the basis for the estimate. It counts completed units, which should approximate building permit
issuance beginning in late 2015, the time th~rowth Plan intensification rule takes eifect~'For larger and older communities, the Growth Plan's 40%
intensification is applied. For rural communities, 20% is applied, based on observed patterns of development in Ontario urban communities.
Growth Plan Greenfield Density Target in Simcoe County Planning Area
Larger and Older Rura! Municipal Simcoe Barrie Simcoe County
Communities Communities County and Orillia Area
Unit Growth 2006-2031 -tO,t,(~(t 32,900 73,500 30,000 103,500
Share Greenfield 2006-2016 £~0'i4~ 80"~f, 80% 80% 80%
Share Greenfield 2016-2031 60",4, £30;~~ 68% 60% Orillia, 0% Barrie 55%
Total Greenfield Units 26,900 26,300 53,200 16,100 69,300
Population @ 3.0 PPU £i0,80U 78,900 159,700 48,200 207,900
Greenfield Employment 23,700 8,900 32,600 20,300 52,800
Total Population & Employment 104,700 87,800 192,200 68,400 260,700
Greenfield Density 50.0 32.0 39.8 50.0 42.0
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2008
Note: For large and older communities, Growth Plan SO residents and jobs combined per ha is applied. For rural communities, 32 residents and jobs
combined is applied. This represents a weighted average of 75% residential an d25% employment land at current county-wide densities, as
shown in appendix H for residential and using 20 employees per Growth Plan ha for employment.
Transportation Master Plan
Public Information Centres
December 4, 2007 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM Wasaga Beach Rec Plex
December 5, 2007 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM Bradford Community Centre
December 6, 2007 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM Casino Rama - Silvernightengale Room
COUNTY OF
SI MCOF _~
For the Greater Goode
`k` ,I~ What is a Transportation
Master Plan ?
growth.simcoe.ca
The Transportation Master Plan is part of the Simcoe
Area Growth Plan and will recommend transportation
policies to support the Simcoe County Official Plan
The Transportation Master Plan will take a system wide
approach to defining all future transportation needs of
the County including vehicular, transit, rail, pedestrian
and cycling
The Transportation Master Plan will identify the need,
justification and timing for the recommended
improvements based on planned growth in the Simcoe
area
c:oc~Nrr of- ,
~IIVECOF
~~
Fnr the @reater Gard ~~.
simcoe.ca
~ Overview of Class EA
Master Plan Process
,_
grow, sr,,:;oe.ca Notice of Study Commencement
~, The st~~dy is being undertaken in accordance with the P/lunicipal Class Environmental Assessment (2000')
(Class EA} Master Planning process as required by the Environment Assessment Act
Agency;Public Consultation Public Information Centre #~1
'~ Phase 1
Identify 8~ Describe the Problem
Phase 2
Evaluate Alternative Solutions & Establish the Preferred Solution
Agency/Public Consultation Public Information Centre #2
Notification of Filing
Transportation Master Plan Document
The Master Plan Report will be made available for public and agency review. The Notice
of Completion for the Master Plan will become the Notice of Completion for the Schedule B projects
identified in the Master Plan
Schedule A 8~ B Projects ~ Schedule C Projects
Typically involve minor improvements ~- Appear Period..-I- Typically major expansions to existing
to existing facilities and/or new facilities and involves
additional study and public consultation
30 Calendar Day Public Review Period --~" ~
couvTr ot~ _
~~~rcoF ^~
For the Gmoter G.Kxf
simcoe_ca
~t p
Trans artation
Challen es
J
F:
__ _ _-_ _ J
growth.simcoe.ca
Increasing age of residents in Simcoe County does not necessarily mean less travel
Increasing amount of discretionary travel during the day
Number of Trips in Simcoe County by Age
200000
c~
0
~ 150000
Q
~ 100000
c~
.,.+
H
50000
0
~~ ~zz 2001
q;__~~, 2006
Age Groups. (Years)
A Public Attitude Survey was conducted in 2007 by Verifact Research Inc. Residents identified these
issues to be the most pressing transportation issue facing the County of Simcoe:
Lack of public transit (44%) Expansion and traffic load / ct~uxrrc>r~ _ ~I
° more lanes 10% ~~~"~~
Highway 400 /congestion grid-lock (11 /°) ( ) nr~ o ,,,~ ,,.~-~--
.....--
simcoe.ca
0-15 16-25
£.
~.
.: ~ ~ Evaluation Criteria
growth.simcoe.ca
The fiollowing five categories of consideration and their respective criteria are proposed
for use in evaluating alternative transportation improvement strategies:
1. Transportation
Support for transit /non-auto modes
Level of transportation service (e.g. demand
v. capacity)
Connectivity to other County /Provincial
roads
Network travel time
2. Social. / Guttural Environrent
Potential impacts to existing
neighbourhoods
Potential impacts to heritage resource areas
Potential impacts to agricultural /resource
based lands
3. Natural. Environment
Potential effects on existing environmentally
sensitive areas
Potential impacts to watercourses
Potential impacts on habitat areas
Potential impacts on air quality
4. Economic Environment
Network improvement costs
Community accessibility
Support for future growth areas
Support for key goods movement routes
5. Land Use Planning
Capability to influence desirable
development patterns (e.g. density targets,
compact, mixed-use)
Potential impact on existing residences,
businesses, institutions or community
facilities
Consistency with Places to Grow legislation
• The preceding categories and criteria will be finalized based on input received from
review agencies and the public
• The evaluation criteria are based on compatibility with County's overall
objectives and reflect the aspects of the
environment outlined in the EAAcI COUNTY OF
• Both qualitative and quantitative (where ~~ 1~~~~
available) measure will be applied ~ ~( ~~
Fo~[hc Greater C-curl
simcoe_ca
Public Perspective on
Transportation Issues
growth.simcoe.ca
Perspective on Roads
There appears to be a slight preference to improving or widening existing roads versus
building new roads (this is true for County roads and provincial highwaysl
Residents appear to feel that improvements to the provincial highway systems are more
critical than improvements to the County road system
Perspective on the Environment
88% feel it is important to limit impact of road construction on natural areas
85% indicated that is very or somewhat important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and improve air quality
Modes of Travel
Residents feel that it is important to increase transportation choices for travel between
municipalities (buses, trains, cycling)
Only 22% indicated they would consider a different mode of transportation to/from work (37%
undecided)
Constraints on Use of Alternative Modes of Transportation
Where residents work/travel distance
Employment barriers (unable to perform job from home)
Other influences on choice of travel mode
Need their car at work Bus service not available -~^"'~"~,..,.
Need a car in case of emergencies Convenience ~cauNTrot-
~~~F
For Ih~ (;realer G~xid ~~~~
Source PublicA[tltude5urveybyVerifac[Researchhc2007orTT52006
simcoe.ca
II
Public Perspective on
Transportation Issues
growth.simcoe.ca
Opportunities for Alternative Modes of Transportation
Car pooling
Respondents who would consider alternative modes of travel would consider car pooling if they could
Find someone to ride with (ride matching) Location of car poo! lots in their areas
Find a ride home in case of emergencies
61 % of respondents feel that the County should invest in car pool lots or car pool lanes on key County
roads
56% support incentives to encourage ride-sharing and other trip reduction programs
Walking
13% of respondents live within 5 km of their place of employment -target market for walking as walking
is only effective in serving local trips
86% of trips less than 5 km are made by car
Cycling
Stronger support for building off road facilities v. on road cycling facilities
x° Limited ability to influence travel patterns to /from work
Transit
89% of respondents feel that it is important to have more choice in travel options between communities
in .Simcoe Caunty
88% of all respondents support investing in a County transit service between
municipalities within Simcoe County
61% of those who said they consider using an alternate mode indicated they coon-rrot~ "~
would use the GO train when service is extended to Barrie ~~~'~~'^~
A similar number indicated they would use the GO train if it serviced other areas F,,,~n~~,~afe,~,~~ ._.,.~
in the GTA Source: Public Attitude Survey by Venfact Research Inc 2007 orTTS 2006 Simcoe ea
x.~ x=~.
growthsimcoe.ca
State of the
Transportation System
Current road segments operating at or near road capacity
Provincial Facilities
Highway 400 / 11
Higway 26 (Callingwood)
Portions of Highway 12 (Orillia)
County Facilities
County Road 4 (Yonge Street)
Coutry Road 10 (Alliston)
County Road 21 {Innisfil Beach Road)
County Road 27 (Bayfield Street)
Road Segments anticipated to operate at or near road capacity in the future
Provincial Facilities
MTO's Simcoe Area Needs Study identified
future deficiencies on:
Highway 400 from Highway 9 to Highway 93
Junction
Higway 93 from Highway 400 to Highway 12
,~ Highway 12 from Durham Region boundary to
Orillia
Highway 12 west of Orillia to County Road 16
Highway 12 to Highway 11
.~ Highway 89
Highway 26
County Facilities
Based on historical growth patterns, a number of
County Roads will have future capacity deficiencies
County Road 4 (Yonge Street) including Bridge
Street /Holland Street through Bradford
Coutry Road 10 (Alliston & Angus)
County Road 50
~~= County Road 21 (Innisfil Beach Road)
County Road 27 (Bayfield Street)
County Road 27 (north Highway 9)
,..,,...
COCI/YTY C)F
~~~~ ~~
1-or the Gre~tcr t;~n-d ~,i,,,.~w..
simcoe.ca
!, ~ Future Transportation
Improvement Strategies
J
g~owth.simcoe.ca
The following strategies can all play a role in shaping the demand for travel and the travel
choices people make.
Manage Demand
Behaviour Based Policies
Increase walking /cycling
Flexible work hours (spread demand
across day)
Telecommuting (work from home)
Ride-sharing (car pooling)
Increase Supply
Optimize Existing System
Access management
Roadway classification
Designated truck routes
Improve existing road conditions
Improve accessibility of existing facilities
Land Use Based Policies Expand Existing Facilities
Increased densities Widen existing roads
Encourage mixed land use Add cycling lanes
Neighbourhood design to support m= Add new transit service /routes
transit /cycling /walking ~ Expand use of rail corridors
Support walking /cycling /
transit at key
.
destinations (employers/retail) Provide New. Facilities
- Enhance accessibility Construct new sidewalks /trails
Construct new roads
Construct new bic cle '""''
Y GOU,VTY DF t
lanes /trails ]~C`~~
~
^
Construct carpool lots ~~<«~~~,~.v~~r~„~ ~
simcoe.ca
SIMGOE AREA
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
•
•
~ __
.... _ t'
...- ~
A st~,F~:r~, •
,_
•
~ -....
• ~
~ ~ ~ •
~~ .r ~~
' ~ ~ - -
_ • ~
•
_ ~ •
~.
•
• ~"
`~ P I PoF r. o ~~ •
~- ~ \
~. r ~ .,
~ _ ~
~~ ~~ ~ . ~ ._-~~ y `~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
~~
~ ~ ~.
1
k I
,, i
1
1~ f ~'y .. %~ ~ ~ ~ '' ~ /'~', IBS ~
~~ ~ ~ ~i~
.r-~±.~~
~~. ~ a ~ ,, ~w ,
I cr a a~;~~„ ra`~ i ~ ~,°`"` ,HrJis~ t t SIMCOE.~y
~_
_ , ..
•~
~, _ -,
1 i, ~
1 - nor~wl ehnwon
i
. ~ _ ixa~ara. I
~ ~ ~~ ~ °. ~ Cwnly ROOtl-COMroMd Attw
1 1
f - "°u~°r
.~' ~,
:~,~ ~ ~~
' •
co nuti canon
.:ts,
'oSni2~N~6 tw ...,~L ...:~ w~r~,sranon
-~ cocoa we
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' .,~ H i i . ~ s.n~,,.nr onlaw rte,
R c )
b ww..
y 1 i LCwirnSL'ri ~' ~
I _, i~ ?a y ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ rAWCk~N ~wa«
~, r
_ >~ - ~~ nm -i.• ~ ~ • ~ i
t _ _ ^ CPo ~OIIDlN
'...i` ._ ___ '/ ~ i NAghbourYqupperner
State of the Transportation System Today
~w...w MUS KO Kq O,STR,OT
l+~
' ~~ PENETANGUISHENE ~~--• SEVERN ~ ~
~~,,,.~-,_,ti~ ~~ -~
k~.. ''Y %MIDLANp ..,_.. ~ _ o
A
n ^'. i
.TAY ~." ~. _ ~„'
~. ~ a
~°
-i,..-v~.. a SB 4 ^'-r ~ _ ~5 ~. 'F
i
3 ~~ ~~ I T
ha T a~ "~ ~ ,~e-
~.
~. ~' ~~ OED MEDONTE ; . ~ "°" ~ - C~ ~"°
j
` . CQLLINGWOOD ~ ++ ,<
WASAGA'
BEACH ~ '~ ~ ~, „~.'-- ~~~Oa
t; RINGWA R,,,,,,
~.
A "~` ~/
~ /
.. . _ ..
~® ` CLEAR IE~/~7°~,~. ^~ - ~, ,- ~ z ~ .
~,.~~- 4~ r _,~
~~ ~,
~' ~ ~, ,~.
~, ~E. NNIS IL ~ ~-~~,TY~''
"® ~, ` ~ Es ~i ,~ SIMCOE~
~ ~~ "` ~ ~~-~ 2006 Summer Weekday
69 3
aq Vehicle Flows
m ~~ z 2006 Summer Weekday
N z~ ~~ ADJ - ~~ ~. ,,~,,, ~ ~' Below Capacity
B FOR Approaching Capacity
'~"'" S ~ ~~~ ~ AtlOver Capacity
3
w E ~ ~OSOR Tlp ,o NEW ~ `~~ ~ Vehicle FIOWS
4 WIL BL1RY~
3
1:125,000 ~ CUMSETH ~ e o
"°° -' 150000 75000 37500
u '~"-' 0 6 12 18
0 5 10 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Kilometers ((` ~ ~-~ ~ Kilometers
°~Grc:Oo-
~~
~
PE NE TANGUISHENE. _, ~~~- ~~
'`.. SEVERN ~
`
- ~
' ,
r
~
nni~1 nNO
..
. t
~
`
~~lt ~. - ,
.
t
,.~ :~ TAY ,~'
~ Internal to Simcoe ~a ~ j
2006 - 60%
~~ w
~ ~ "
b~
5
I
2001 - 60%
w~..,a
2
r
~~~
~.~,„
,-
r.
1 / .-
-
0liw
., r~~ ~..,.
.. .,~, O~NIEDONT / ~
°~~ o~~wo ~'
.
r ~
~~C01.LINGWOOD WAS! ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~
- ~
.~~ E.m
--~
FIB E~ 400
r ` ...
(f :.
~ ~,
1~ /
/
~..
RINGWA7`
;.
`
...
~.
-; „~~w, 26 .~. ,
r
{
.
- _.-,..-.^
. •- I Barrie ., ~'•
.-.
-~--t M~,
,
~ 2006 - 144 , ,.
f
..
~, ..
. 2001 I '
„~ CLERR~/IEV~7 ~. `
., ~,~ -
.
~~ t .
t ~._.__ ._
.. ~,~
~- .:
:'
.,
.
1.., .,
~~ ,~ ~ ~_ ~1;LI((1~
"~ ~~ ~ ~
~
~ i~~ Destination of Work Trips
i a
Eater^°' '~ 'i
~
'~
.-.
- Originating in Simcoe County
,~- ,
~,
--_ _
.. n
~. ... ~_~ ~ . ~
F S .
Legend '~
I
xe
H ADJA~ - ~~~~ gR DFORD co
~~~
rk j Provincial Highways i
~~ ~~
W E Peel I TOSORGNTIQ ,o -NEW W ST _ ~6
~ °~ I x'00' 9 ~ ~~ County Roads
10J '' ~ Local Roads
s ~,~ .~~~CUMSETH
-
' Municipal Boundaries
;
~''~~~ i
1:125
000 ' Neighbouring County/RegioNDistrict ~
,
1
.
,
0 5 10 m o ~ /.~ Toronto
~ f
~ j First Nations Land
-_ __ __
---
~ _ Kilometers
~ -
-~_ - ~
~ ~
2 ~:>> >~. I
I
__
0
s,
~~r.~~ ; ~!: _
/ `'`
t
State of the Transporation System Today
.~.,,. M~g KO Kq DISTRICT
. ~~,~
1sd
PENE7ANGUISHENE ~--- ~ ~,.,,
sz
SEVERN ~..
MIDLAND ~,e~,l.. o
.. _.
w~ ..... •-- ,z , v
> _ . _ ~ ~
___-.._ ,
~~o-~~- ~ n.a i mau a~a eco>c~aewwonwrvax
_.„ - "_
- -_ r `~,. ..._ TAY ; _ --,`
-~ ,~
TINY N
__ _
y o.„A.
,r~ RAMARP ~ '° _
~ ~ ,z ~~,~~~r~r~~
~ h a? ''ti
w "~ .
«.. •'"
COLLINGWOOD WASAGA ~ ~~ \"~
~ BEACH ~ b,~ ~`~ ,,K~ ~~o
2 '•, ' ~ CR I1 C,Mphrat f ~(~
y w. FVUe da+NOpnx~Vafik ~1
~ ~
~""
.~
,a
,tee m < ~ ''. > ....,
D ~ ~ ~ _.
t
_CLEARIEVt7°'" ~.~ ~`~„ ` ~A ~ ~IEF~ „ate.'
s~r''~
`°
~~ ~ ,~~
,.. ~NNtS~IL i
,z ,".~ i ES'~fc.,....
,~,, ~ °~ `~ Road Network Concerns raised
~,3 ,~~~---- ~ ~ -°• by Area Municipalities
rowq ~ ~. r~,a ems..{ ~ ' -'ice
-, ~.,, ,
~ ~~ . ~ ~.
T A Y
m .,J~ ~':r,~ r R4 WUa
A i ~~ ... ve(M1C,v4me~J
i
~ , . ,~"`
N o AD,~4iP J' ~~ ~ B DFOR
w ,., _
W E TOSOR TIO ~-, NEW ~ Ji~"
~~ S r
C .
1:125 000 TCUMSETH ~- ~ Ali B `
~- --
~ cnecdwr~c
,~,,.~
0 5 10 ~ ~~ °~;~
~~ Kilometers
,~.,.~
~„ t ~~G`pN
~~~~~ PEES
Legend
County Road
County Road - Controiled Access
------- Proposed 4001404 Link
Provinaal Highways
Local Roads
Municipal Boundaries
w~. MDSKO KA DISTRICT
v..~.r k:
PENE~'ANGUISHENE ~~- W
SEVERN
`.~E, ~~ ~ ,.~.. ~ ~~` `
'` `_
~z _ ~
{~ - ~ 4
TAY _
y
f
JNUit,~ ~ 50 ~v ~ tb Y
9J ~
T Y N
R<
~,z RAMARA "'
~... .a
O -MEDONTE
.~ _Aw.~~F ~,. ~ ~~„
,' ~,
'~.-COLLINGWOOD WASAGFy' ~, " ~~ '"'- ~'~~~
~ o
-,~1, RIN WA R„„,;,, °°
P w...
~ ~yt ~ ,,i` a.. ..~
C
~ ~_i i 40
Z CLEAR IEV1~"`"'"` \`
'~ ~ 1 ~T 'a!MwrA
` w ~ +~ L
\:.~ I
12 ~~ ~. `f 0 ~ COVM17Y OT-
..
~.." ' "'""" NNIS IL SIMCOE~'~
~.~.
'_ ~~ ~' ~~ E Current Coun of Simcoe
;5 J Trail System
0
~~
A 5 ,J ,.~ Legend
tV o ADJ ~ ~ g DFOR~ Community Trail
~ Trans Canada Trail
W E W ST o Provincial Highways
'~OSOR TIO ,o EW " ~
~' ~`, WfL MB RYA County Roads
S ~
' T UMSETH ~- ~r ~o Local Roads
1:125,000 / Municipal Boundaries
0 5 10
~ Kilometers
>~
9
~ _ `.:: O N
2008 PROPOSED
CAPITAL BUDGET
TRANSPORTATION AND ENGINEERING
Project 6 0716, 0724, TMP0603, TMP0804
:ounty Road 44 -Phase 2 d 3 Carams:Um,
Phase 2 e 3 Pmoerty and Clemm
Project A'0720
County Rood 19 - tkbeMZmon
.._vn-5' Road J.: - - i`i aehah
f t ;n1
~~~. h F3 F1~- N~, t' .;~t ~~r,.~ 1
\~
~. ~ sd~,i~, ~.. sr ~, , :.-.~
` s,:n„n }
,~b
Prelerv. b7 ~gPi18121 _
Fro~,~_. xlrrl 'J6;a C, ^"coa~2-- V7nHOn*Re~1~.nh
F rc., ~.ricF ~„ «~h pit. b"-=,..
~ _ct 7~ ~ _, N',F1
~i -fh rL ~ 1~a
~~ za~ ,~. ~
~„
~
~~~ ~ Rest, -
~
N~N06:f0 ~ ... '.
C ~Y Rmtl 3l n ~:,,.. ~ 7C~+: ~
M Grey Caunb-C trucYm~
g ~..
I Project IlTMP0808 ~
Cowrty Road 91 -Aaeeernar4. `
DaeIT, Plet(am Rehab _ Q _,ys^- ~.
Piojec~tTAN0ab7, TMPOa6B
Cou.vy PmU 95-wlGq(:omry ,
~. can.,. ~. ~~ I -~ E
c
tLli ~:~h t _i
Pi t
h4'
b. ~r.,., v ah 0=~5
///
Pr 'Y
Counf~ P..n~ .,~... R^h.L
.~/
___..,Project BTMPOB33 - / ~'
Counry Road 5 ` ~ ;
Jakd Vatue WItl1 GrlFa11 Camry ~ //
~__ __--_
F I Kf 1
~I ,~. ~f C]F.- fli ~ ~ ant.
~''
Praject;Y0725, Tt~'0605, TMP08lN
Casey Rom 50 Phase 3 CansWCtlan,
Phase 3 d 4 Property. Claerkq . Fras:itg, Utl76as
Bridge Projects
Road Rehabilitation Projects
Intersection and Road
Reconstruction Projects
~_
cavxrc crr
S-MCOey -- -~ -
J.
~~-
F. rr. 9rlrl
_rv r,,
r r,,,,.~ ~. ,. "ache
n - _er~u
t'
- r'ac
~ t if,1P "sF
.' 1 _,, x..
Projecl6 0722, TMP0832
Camp Rood t1 ~ 13tlr Lure - Property
- hae,aecuon rrpro~ernent: _
Project 6 0722
Carry Road 74 ~ 7th Line
kitersec6on lmprovemeNs
~~ ~ t~ l.,
~~~. y ~°
__k, ,
s~~
~~ .,~«
~., ~~` , r
\\ l ften,o
''~i ~~ ~ j FtvKnt 7tT A1Po830
,fj$Ky¢ ..l ~~~- ~ County Road 40 ~ WYson Property i qo~,j ypt•27. 0741.0713. TMP0902
~.g£~% .._J c rcr paee 4acnasesal.cmewcua,.
Y. ~R+~ ~ .- - .-.._ Phwe 3.1 Propr~Y. ~~8. UUllbe, fend~q
~~--F~i ...____..-
+ ,~ ----
-~_
...' ~ ~ Poject 60503, TMP0659
Cornry Roca 9o En am oesgn,
;7 ~. ~ ?rovadY Cleahg, utNglea
C -_ ~---_ __ _...---
~ ~-~~~"~~._ --_ ----_ Project 60603 TMP0826~ .
~~-~ ' CR 21 ~ CR 39 Poperty
\~ ~~ ~.::,`^- _ _ ~ hkareecibn,prprovemeM
~~`\ `~~:' .` _.,~~-- - Pray60604. TMP0626
~ ,. i CR 39 ~ 7th Line -Property
` I kkeraetllon 4rpfovernenf6
> ~ ~-`
.~ '-
Prnject;40607, TMP0832
\.
~~\ lI CR 54 ~ 70th Lire
w~'q~ ,~~ LMnproyemenlsi
~`~, ~^''.,A ~' Projeat BTMP0827
~`~. I CR 21 ~ CR 54 - Property
~\
,.
\`~
.- 160665, TMP062a ~
', r:R 69 ~ tOm SideRd -Property
~~ \ - Mewedbn Nprovarents
~ ~\
' h xF
`~\\~` I 1
U rye ~I \~` ~~\ ~ to rK_I__-_
rrr Ft~{.f. ~ rl ~~\ Plojact 60673,TMP0807~
\~~ ca.xr Rom ee en a omen i
Property, c.Leaan9. uran~
i i ~r n PmjeasTr.+Peaot
he i n ~~ROm B-rmprvrertrer4s
F ~i 1]
i
Next Steps
growth.simcoe.ca
Comments received from the first series of Public Information Centres will be
considered along with those received from stakeholders and review agencies
The preferred transportation improvement strategies will be identified and
presented for public review and comment at a second series of public forums
in Spring 2008
The final Master Plan report will be prepared and made available for public
review at the end of the project (mid-2008)
Contact either of the Project Team members listed below at any time
throughout the project if you have questions or comments
Adrienne Long, P. Eng.
Project Manager, Earth Tech
105 Commerce Valley Drive West, 7th Floor
Markham, Ontario L3T 7W3
Phone: 905-747-7527
fax: 905-886-9494
E-Mail: adrienne.fong@earthtech.ca
For more information, email TMP@simcoe.ca or visit
Nathan Westendorp, MCIP RPP
Planner, County of Simcoe
1110 Highway 26
Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1X0
Phone: 705-726-9300 ect.1360
Fax: 705-727-4276
growth.simcoe.ca
j COUNTY OF
! ~~~~
For 15c Greater Gormt ~
simcoe.ca
bA
~i
I
rd
L
rd
L ~
o
~
~ a
0 Q
br0
~_
(~
,; :,;;
;~
ow
Z~ -
~~ ~
Q
y
~
u
`
`_•
`o
O
C~
_~
C
O
U
W
~~' ~
•-
~;.
.~
Q~
(C3
~ L
~
t ~ -~ ~ ~
~"~ V ~ N L
ti--
0 f
~ ~
~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ ~ ~' ~
.~ ~ ~ ~
~
L
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
V ~
- ' ~ ~/~ ~ O
-v ~ a ~ ~ •° ~'0
~ ~ ~ ~
~ °~
a~o °-
• ~ ~-
a~ U o -v
L ; ~, .
~
~ _
.O '~ ~ ~ cd
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~
~ 4~
~ ~
~ L
~
~
._ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ L
r
V
L
V
~
~
~
~ r
n
1
cn cc3 ~ O - C
u O O ~ p ~ a ~
~ U U ci a ~ ~ ~
~i ~
41:
`O ~ ,~
`\
['~
j
~~ ~
a
.~
~--~
4~
U
N
^~
W
.~
V
Y~
•~
~+--
S
.?
O
0
U
L
O 0
O V
V
O
C ~
•~ ~
d ~
cd ~
'~ N
~ ~
cd
N ~
•~ u
.O ~
a
~ ,~
u
~~
'o
'u ~
00
~°
~,
~~
v ~
a ._
~ ~
i
N
0
•V
"~
.~
N
O
O
.~
a
-v
Q
O
vM~ ^,
~~
W
O
•\V
br0 ~
C
• N b~0
~ ~~
~ ~X
c~ ~
~ u
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ O
~ ~
o ~,
u ~
cd ~
L ~
~_
~.
~~
>~
o -o
a ~'
~ ~
`~,
i ~`
;~~~tt~
'~~ F
c,
~.
F~
o ~„~
-rr :~
~~
:~
~~_
0
~u .~
,~,.~
~ . b~0
^N^,,
•~ W
.~
TN
K,,..~ .. ,~>. W V
LF-
O
..
~
',' ^^
1~
O
~~
.. mo o
N
N
~ ~
fC3 s
V
N
~..i
,--, t/1
~ Q
~ •~
U
'L O
~ V
t ~
«3 ~
L ~
td 4-
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
o a
U
~~
~ ~
.C "O
~ ~
~ td
ct3 ~
Q1
f~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
•~ ~
V
"~
C
cd
.~
.y
Q
0
.~
L
(~
.~
(d
N
N
~_
f~
Q~
Q~
a
43
y-
C~
N
fcj N
.~ ~~
.~ d
V
R3
~../
~aa , ......-n--._
b~~0
~~-+
.~
L
fc3
~---
(~
V
C
.~
~_
~V
.;
0
c'd
L
.~
N
3
N
~±-
~3
.~
N
N
~-
i-~
ct3
b~.0
•L
V
N
vi
N
L
N
.~
cd
~ 1 ~ ~
_
V
O
~ .~
~~
. ~.
~ Q
._
N
W ~
y- ~
0 ~
t/1 ~
• - CU
c/1 ~
V
~~i--
0
Q~
y
.~
br0 O
N ~
~_ ~
d cci
~ ~
~ ~
N .~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ L
~ 0
d ~
.~ ~
cc3
~ Q
~ >
~~
O
'~ ~
~ O
~~
N cn
L_ V
• ~ (d
N d
~ ._
N
.~
'~
chi
C
U
br0
.N
N
0
tc3
O
.~
O
V
N
cd
L
.~
L
.~
0
V
V
.~
c~
.N
.~
N
L ~
td
~N V
~ 4=
~ ~~
C bQ
._
~ N
N ~
~V ~
.O U
d ~
N ~"'
~ V
N ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ d
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ N
._ ~ L
0 ~ cd
~ ~ ~
N br0 cd
.~ ~ ~
_d ~ ~
~V ~ ~
.~ ~
~ ~ ~
«3 ~
u "' ~
O ~ ~
~ a~
. ~ ~ ccs
~ • _ i.
~ V ~
~ O C
~;
~~.
~,
~r
;:
~~~ t
~.~ ~
0 ~ „.
z
o (,J .~
w
~~
r••..,
4~
0
a
Q~
~ ~
0 ~
~ O
~ .a
~ O
~ N
._
~ O
L •~
~ y
V ~
~~ ~
~ ~L
~ ~
o
~ o
~ ~
a~
a~
~ ~
~,
.~ ~ ~
~ /~
r+ 7 ~ w
•~ ^~, ~~
W
O
^~,
W
o
E- U ~
~ '' ~ l~
I
~~
~. ~ `'
' ~~ ~
t/1
0
u
O
d
L
L
U
N
C
c~
N
(~
V
.C
O
O
N
C
N
C
c~i
O
O
3
u
c
ao
O
.~
O
L
N
N
.N
~L
.V
V
•O
O
O
.~
c~
C
O
N
cd
u
c
c
a
.-~.
u
v~
'u
a
O
n
O
O
-~'v
u
c
«i
n
O
O
-~v
u
c
i ~';
i ~
a. X
`- ~~
O
~~ N
~ ~
~
L
~ ~
1..
~
~F,
1~ ~ ~
~ `'~N'~
V
~,r 1
..': V ,~.~1
l
V
~
'
~ ~
O ^^
,,
W
~ O
O ~ ~
v
~ v
~ N
..
a
ca V /
^
,
W
O
L
d -0
~
N
~ (~
C
(~ N
-~
~ ~
~
3 ~ c
i-~ ~j
~ •~
V
t*_' V b„0
~
~
.
~ ~.F-
•_ N
V
N
~
~ ~
•O ~ N N
~
~
~V N
~ ~
~ ~
, ~ Q~
~ ~ ~ ~
C~ L ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ U ~ ,
~w.
_},
. O
~^
1..~
O
LL
V
O
z
n
N
td
('~
V
O
N
c~
(~
V
Q oo U
i
I ~f
`-,
°~
d
~o
j
d
M~~
._
4)
L
t^'C'3
W
L
Z
c~
4~
L
Q
C
N
N
N
>~
.~
_~
U
^V,
W
L
N
N
C
vi
cd
N
L ~
t~ O
~ ~~
C ~
Q~
a
~ -°
c ~
~3
~~
aN
~ '~
~ `~
a
a~ ~
L~
c~ ~
N ~
~ ~
C U
C 4-
~ O
~ L
L
~7 a
O
.~
0
,...
~,..
L ~
Z7 U.0
(~ ~
0 ~
i-~ ~
N _
~ (CS
f~
~- ~
~„-
~ ~
.i' ~
~ ~ C
. ~
~ ~ O
~ • U
N
~ ~ c
~..~
~
s
c
-~ - 0
0 •
c ~ ~
o ~
'~
~ ~
a.o
,
ao ~
a~
.~ ~, ~
a~
~ ~
.~
-v
~,
~ ~, ~
~
~
~ ~
~ a~
~, ~ ~
s ~
UQ N L O
C~ • ~ ~ N ~
U ~ ~ ~
~
~
~
N tCj
S
Z ~ ~ ~ U
Q oo CU
-^'
COUNTY OF
~~ ~ ~r.
For the Greater Good _~_
~~ G reen Ian d s Li n ka es
g
.~...~
Current policy
=:
^ Corridors suitable for restoration are mapped, but considered part
of County's Rural and Agricultural designation
Future options
A. No change
B. A streams and change to Greenlands designation
C. Add streams and suitable overland corridors, and change to
Greenlands designation
x
I ~~
~i ~~
~~ ~s ~..
~ ~~_.._
T~
V
c~
V
0
0
z
^~
W
0
U
TC
V
N
C N
r'~ (d N
~ ~ ~V
N
t~ ~
L V ~
. ~ y- ~
L ~N L
~ ~
~ R3 "~
•V 'V C
~ ~ cd
.O •~ N
L L ~V
~- ~ Cl.
C N
'~ 'L7
~ ~ ~
.~ _ ~
O b4
.~ ~ ~
~..i C ~
a~
u ~ o
a
.O 0 ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ s
~ o a~
L Z
U
L
0
C
(L9
N
L
C
V
~+_
.
C
V
L ~
~ 'O
'~
~ L
~
C
~
~
~ ~
~
"
L O
cct
~ z ~ -Np
~ O ~ ~
~
a~
4- -
-v ~ ~ O
~ ~3 Q > 3 ~'
O ~
•
~ c c c c ~
~ U V V V ~
0
cd C C C C
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q
~ ~
~ Z Q
~
Q m
~.}~,
llJ ~
$ ~ _ . -___._ _ _ _-__
W
2 lA
F `PKES d~6y
KPVJ PRTN ~ dpp
Y OF _
O\j
~
~ r
nn
U
''^^•LLl
~. ~
~ ul r
O W
n
i ZO ~ W
2
~s .7.
~V~
oJ
°s~
5 ~ }
W Q
U]
U `
2 A]
~ ~ if
I
~
, ~
O ~ ~ 4
,
YO ~
~ s
~ o W r _ ~Oi
~
F - ~
~ y ~
_ ~ k
gg
d ~
/ ~
E
- ~ 1 S
. k
r -
t
FF ~
~ z~ a~ E
g -
w
- -
- -
e
.
_ g
~
_ _
a ~
_
k s ~
~
~ k a
C7 -
Z ` a`
-
i
~ w
y
N
~~ N
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
.a ~ ` O
_ ~ ~ m
~ _ ~ (0
m ~ ~ 'n
~ Y w o
J ~ z ~ ~
~y
~ O~
z
0
~~
1 s
' ~ °' ~.. - OUNiY
~ pUFFERIN O
= 3
U z
c tq ~
;
~ m
~ ro
p ao
C
J ~ ~
~ ~
U x "
~~
~6
~ L
v o J 5% ? 1 Y
w
a
2~N
~
U ~~.1 d F
~
~
°
~ O
~
G
ac
QU
C m
° ~ m LL o q S GREY p
J p UNiY c p Q
Q
m
; " ~ m
m
¢ m
Evm ~
a o°v
E v
j
~
~
a
2 `am
d~EN
iLL
; > v
~~ y
-
?~a ~
~=
pf am ~
N
oY
~
~
R t;~ 0~ g~ E a a ~
y U
m ¢ .o
y N z a y c ~ iv
o
k
I J ~ c
U
i
~ m Y q ~~
m C ¢
y ,~
~~~~ d y
2 D E 3 ~ ~
2
~C iii
CaC
R
~>~~C
c
g y
cf "
'
~~°
~
Sf U`DUa
~
U `°
'c9 y
~.
~
W U`amy °''`oy
`'_`'.
2 c
~
mVU2 J ~ 2
hYN N•
0
2
2
c •a c
c ~-
3
o';t3`V
hor?
" i,.l::
"
y L~ c~
o°~ C ~y0uo U y `
~~ ~ ,
t
a,°LU-: ~
W K ..
U
¢ ;y'iY~ K3 ;
° y ~o~a`, q o
a2a a~ W 0~
x U~ 'om O a`wZ Ode LS
)
~
~
i
W Vin w
O rmm01a ~
~ ~Oatiti ~ oo~czoa ~
¢ .oa
20 ~
om3d~omo°oE
~ m2U02Tc2y o
~ dam m'~az ¢ uata uY
~';°~~ >
~ ~~oi,o3m
ON2~U¢m ¢ ~; y~'~
Ui
W
~ '
•"
.
~
O
m
aiaaa
yytiyh
C
¢
aaa°aa
Si
w
aaa°a
UUmU N
Z
aaa°aaa
C7
S
ww
O
m ~ff~ ~~ ff
Y
¢
~~~~
zzzm
U
O
Zi~~Utim
>.
Z
aaiaaia
¢
y n~
4m
JJ
~
JJJ ', ~'
mmmmm U ~UU~~ wwWW ? ~;;:~~ z ii o 0000 00 00 0 0000 ~ m'c"s c°z" ~ kkkkkkk ¢
3 -
.I
333333 0 •-~'
Woodlands Not Publicly Owned or Protected
1 s ~ ~~
• ~ ..'~'
p~ ~ P'EAN GUISH ENE ~,°1~~~ s~'S #~
~~_ i o 7'!',t ! ~ s~v~R~ o ~ .~ ~~~~ sx.,, 1` ~ bry t {cif 1E` SM
i~ ~ ~-;',{tt'r~ ~-~~r 1 I D L a •.~ ~ yji \ h;Y~ ~ ' . ~ :- f .:f` f ; ~i !l
~~t~ , • ~ r"" '~A~%'+s~~~ cam'-'-' ~`~ z- '~~ ~ ~~ ~~;~'/.~-."
3 ~•~~ ,;, „ ~ ~
?{
~i ;a s y yt, ~ QTY
1 . CG LLINGI'JOOD ~~',~ f~' "B~ .'.
1 9EAChl ~ ' ~ \ ' ~ ~ s '
r ~* (tea ~' t. t~ '~' ~f Z ., f ,
~~~t~% y T -; T. Y~ ~
~. ~ a1~~. ~ ~ ~~. 1 [ f r ., 2,"`.s' a ~.- ~
`.t~. ~~~Y nT _ \ pE .rte +~
, 1
1 V
It ~'~" ~~•~ ~ ,, ~„ ~~ -. yt~: `,~M~'h r 1~ /owe 1 , ~ / _. - .
,_f
e ,a~+y r. }b
f _ f H ~»A+y AM~~? rY~
./".-
~ A .Y~L h '.1 - \~
i ~ ~' ** _
K-~
i Tr O S O~~ I O ~~ N. E ~v ;' ~
~1 ~ * t'. ~~~ tf ~, Y"~+ ~NIJL L I c 1, ~r ~ ,~~~nb~
. ~ irE 'G ./ - w canmas
{ ~ (.iii _ •~1, as Ao. ~..aa c,.~.m~a.
,, ~ ~, ~.
"_ ,~ , a f ~Tir ~r~ ~'" ~ ®`~ ~o b„gym a~ .~e~ ~~.a,
'~~ ,~
,~ F b~~
Kilometers ~ ~,~ •-~ n~w~ `~ = a=•~= ~~~,z>
0 5 10 20 ; uN~~b~,~nb~n ~~~c
a® ~mo,~,~~om~.,~ ho ~~wa~
,
r _,~.. o,w~=~ ~ ,
~„` '°a- .
o., wa ,b,
LINO r ' , , , 't , .. , " , - u~QU"" a ~,mo
t~.._o~* ,. , .~,.,,.~,,,,,_.a,,,,,.~,,,,,.,,..,.,_.~ ~