Loading...
08 18 2008 PAC AgendaTOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS Date: Monday, August 18, 2008 Time: 7:00 p.m. 1. OPENING OF MEETING BY CHAIR 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING -June 23, 2008 5. DEPUTATIONS: None. 6. PUBLIC MEETINGS: None. 7. PLANNING APPLICATIONS: None. 8. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION: a) Mayor H.S. Hughes, Overview, Craighurst Process and Resolution. b) Mayor H.S. Hughes, Remuneration Request from PRC, Resolution of Council. c) Report No. DS 2008-44, Glenn White, Senior Planner, re: Planning Advisory Committee Mandate -Procedural Options. d) Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services re: Proposed New Official Plan, County of Simcoe. 9. OTHER BUSINESS 1 EDUCATION: a) Mayor H.S. Hughes, re: Growth Plan Update. b) Tom Kurtz, re: Source Water Protection Committee Update. 10. ADJOURNMENT URO•l~~1~DQNT~ iU'vViyS~lt~ MaT~o~v~~~ - ~`~ JUN 2 ~ 200$ M~~TlfVG: CGUNCI~ C. OFW.^ June 23, 2008, 7:03 p.m. Council Chambers Present: Council Representatives Mayor N.S. Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Haugh Councillor Mel Coutanche Councillor Terry Allison Councillor Sandy Agnew Councillor John Crawford Councillor Dwight Evans Public... Representatives Linda Babulic Roy Hastings Tom Kurtz Mary O°Farrell-Bowers Larry Tupling Staff Present: Rabin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer; Glenn White, Senior Planner; Steve Farquharson, Intermediate Planner; (Vick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd.; Janette Teeter, Deputy Clerk Also Present: Bruce Hoppe, Robert & Eleanor Hale, Brent & Sheri Hale, Christine Bergland, Jennifer Copper, Betty Veitch, Lynette Mader, Dave Mader, Ambrose Cook, Denise Lee, R. Rankine, S. budding; S. Pynn, G. Sargent, J. Banville, E. Banville 1. OPENING OF MEETING BY CHAIR Deputy Mayor Hough assumed the chair and called the meeting to order. 2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA Motion No. PAC080623-1 Moved by Tom Kurtz, Seconded by Larry Tupling It is recommended that the agenda for the Planning Advisory Committee meeting of Monday, June 23, 2008 be received and adopted. TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES 200fi-2010 TERM Carried. 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF: - "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT" None declared. 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING -MAY 26, 2008 Motion No. PAC080623-2 Moved by Tom Kurtz, Seconded by Larry Tupling It is recommended that the minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting held on May 26, 2008 be received and adopted. Carried. 5. DEPUTATIONS: None 6. PUBLIC MEETINGS: a} Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-Law, 200$-ZBA-04, 1310 Moonstone Road West, Concession 3, South part of Lot 16 (Medonte), Township of Oro- Medonte, (Brent Hale}. Deputy l~ra~or Ralph Haugh called the public meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and explained the public meeting has been called under the authority of the Planning Act, Section 39, R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13, to obtain public comment with respect to a proposed Temporary Use By-law, Application 2008-ZBA-04 (Hale), South part of Lot 16, Concession 3, (Medonte), 1310 Moonstone Road West, Township of Oro-Medonte. Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed to landowners within 120m (400 feet) of the specified site on May 29, 2008 and posted on a sign on the subject property on May 29, 2008. The following correspondence was received at the meeting: Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority dated June 20, 2008. Glenn White, Senior Planner, explained the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting .lunP ?3 ?008_ Paae 6. PUBLIC MEETINGS: (Cont'd) The following public members offered verbal comments with respect to the proposed amendment: None. The Deputy Mayor advised that written submissions will be received at the Township offices until July 7, 2008. No additional deputations to Council will be permitted with respect to the proposed amendment. A digital recording of the meeting is available for review at the Township Administration Centre, 148 Line 7 South. There being no further comments or questions, the meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m. 7. PLANNING APP<_ICATI4NS: a) Report No. DS 2008-040, Glenn White, Senior Planner, re: Proposed Zoning By- I_aw Amendment Application 2007-ZBA-08, RDR Marine Systems, 551 Line 9 South, Part of Lot 24, Concession 10, (Ora), Township of Oro-Medonte. Motion No. PAC080623-3 Moved by Roy Hastings, Seconded by Linda Babulic It is recommended that 1. Report No. DS 2008-040, Glenn White, Senior Planner, re: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Application 2007-ZBA-08, RDR Marine Systems, 551 Li^o ~ uooth, Part of Lot 24, Concession 10 (Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, be received and adopted. 2. And Further That it is recommended to Council that Application 2007-ZBA-08, RDR Marine Systems proceed to a Statutory Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting .lone 93 9~OR Pane 3 ~. b) Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd., memorandum correspondence re: Craighurst Secondary Plan -Update [to be distributed electronically]. c) Report No. BP 2008-035, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd., re: Craighurst Secondary Plan -Next Steps [deferred from May 26, 2008 meeting]. Items b) and c) were dealt with at the same time. Motion No. PAC080623-4 Moved by Mary O'Farrell-Bowers, Seconded by Roy Hastings It is recommended that 1. Report No. DS 2008-42, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd., re: Craighurst Secondary Plan be received and adopted. 2. That it is recommended to Council to support, in principle, future development in Craighurst an the basis of fuH municipal services. 3. That Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd. be authorized to prepare three Concept. Plans for the Craighurst Settlement Area based on the premise that development will be serviced by municipal sewer and water services in accordance with Provincial Policy. 4. That the presentation of the three Concept Plans and the holding of two open houses, to be held in the Craighurst community, to present and obtain comments on the Concept Plans in the Fall of 2008 be authorized. 5. And Further That a draft Secondary Plan for Craighurst be presented. to Planning Advisory Committee before a decision is made to hold a formal public meeting under the provisions of the Planning Act. Defeated. 8. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION: a) Mary (Betty) Veitch, correspondence dated June 1, 2008 re: Craighurst Secondary Plan. Motion No. PAC080623-5 Moved by Tom Kurtz, Seconded by Larry Tupling It is recommended that the correspondence dated June 1, 2008, from Mary (Betty) Veitch, re: Craighurst Secondary Plan be received and referred to staff for consideration in the Craighurst Secondary Plan. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting .Iona 73 9(1OA Pane 4 9. OTHER BUSINESS 1 EDUCATION: a) Mayor Hughes, re: Growth Plan Update. Motion No. PAC080623-6 Moved by Larry Tupling, Seconded by Tom Kurtz It is recommended that the verbal information presented by Mayor H.S. Hughes re: Growth Plan update be received. Carried. b) Tom Kurtz, re: Source Water Protection Committee Update. Motion No. PAC080623-~ Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Mary O'Farrell-Bowers It is recommended that the verbal information presented by Tom Kurtz re: Source Water Protection Committee update be received. Carried. c) Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd. /Glenn White, Senior Planner, re: Shoreline Official Plan Policy. Glenn White, Senior Planner distributed correspondence to members of the Committee. Motion No. PAC080623-8 Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Mary O'Farrell-Bowers It is recommended that the verbal information presented by Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd. !Glenn White, Senior Planner, re: Shoreline Official Plan Policy be received. Carried. Planning Advisory Committee Meeting 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion No. PAC084fi23.9 Moved by Linda Babulic, Seconded by Mary tJ'Farrell-Bowers It is recommended that we do now adjourn at 9:47 p.m. Carried. Chaiir, Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Senior Planner, Glenn White Planning Advisory Committee Meeting ~~ ~. Teeter, Janette From: Irwin, Doug Sent: Friday, .tune 27, 2008 :i:24 PM To: babulic patandroy. tom.kurtz marg. ; larry.tupling Cc: .Council; Dunn, Fsoom; I eater, Janette; White, Glenn Subject: Recommendations from PAC Meeting of June 23, 2008 Attachments: Excerpt for draft Council Minutes of June 25.pdf At the June 25, 2008 meeting, Council defeated the recommendation with respect to the Craighurst Secondary Plan from the Monday, June 23rd Planning Advisory Committee meeting. Members of Council will provide the rationale at the next PAC meeting. A recorded vote was requested on the matter. Subsequent to the original vote being taken on the matter, Deputy Mayor Hough asked for reconsideration as his vote did not reflect his intended position. Council carried a motion to reconsider the vote on PAC Motion #PAC080623-4 and a second recorded vote was taken. An excerpt from the draft Council Minutes, with respect to the Planning Advisory Minutes of June 23, 2008, is attached. Council also voted to establish a volunteer Working Group, to work in conjunction with the Planning Consultant in preparation of the 3 Concept Plans for the Craighurst Settlement Area. The volunteer Working Group is to be composed of Mayor H.S. Hughes, the Ward Councillor -Sandy Agnew, 1 representative from Planning Advisory Committee, 1 representative from Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit and 2 residents of Craighurst. PAC Members who have an interest in becoming the PAC member of the volunteer Working Group are asked to advise Doug Irwin, Clerk, in writing at dir~n ~~_ ` ~ ~_~ =d; ~'.~ c<~ by Friday, July 4, 2008. Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services/Clerk Township of t?ra-Medonte 14$ Line 7 South, Box 100 Qra, ON LOL 2X0 Telephone: (705) 487-2171 Fax: (705) 487-0133 e-mail: r:: r _ - - Excerpt far draft Council Minutes of June 25= 2008 e} Planning Advisory Committee minutes, meeting held on June 23, 2008. Madan Na. C080625-32 Moved by Allison, Seconded by Coutanche [3e it resolved that the draft minutes of the Planning Advisory Committee meeting held on June 23, 2008 be received. Carried. Madan Na. C080625-33 Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Agnew Be it resolved that Application 2007-ZBA-08, RDR Marine Systems proceed to a Statutory Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. Carried. Motion Na. C080625-34 Moved by Coutanche, Seconded by Allison Be it resolved that Whereas the Planning Advisory Committee at its meeting of June 23, 2008 considered the following recommendation, "1. Report No. DS 2008-42, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd., re: Craighurst Secondary Plan be received and adopted. 2. That it is recommended to Council to support, in principle, future development in Craighurst on the basis of full municipal services. 3. That Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd. be authorized to prepare three Concept Plans for the Craighurst Settlement Area based on the premise that development will be serviced by municipal sewer and water services in accordance with Provincial Policy. 4. That the presentation of the three Concept Plans and the holding of two open houses, to be held in the Craighurst community, to present and obtain comments on the Concept Plans in the Fall of 2008 be authorized. 5. And Further That a draft Secondary Plan for Craighurst be presented to Planning Advisory Committee before a decision is made to hold a formal public meeting under the provisions of the Planning Act," And Whereas the recommendation was defeated by the Planning Advisory Committee as documented by Motion No. PAC080623-4; Now Therefore, Council endorses the Planning Advisory Committee recommendation to defeat the aforementioned recommendation. Defeated. Excerpt from draft Council Minutes of June 25, 2008 Page 1 of 3 Recorded Vote Requested 1 Councillor Evans Deputy Mayor Hough Councillor Agnew Councillor Allison Councillor Coutanche Councillor Crawford Mayor H.S. Hughes ~y Councillor Evans Nay Yea Yea Nay Nay Nay Nay Motion No. CO€10625-35 Moved by Allison, Seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the motion with respect to Planning Advisory Committee, Motion No. PAC080623-4, be reconsidered. Carried. Motion No. C080625-36 Moved by Coutanche, Seconded by Allison Be it resolved that Whereas the Planning Advisory Committee at its meeting of June 23, 200$ considered the following recommendation, "1. Report No. DS 2008-42, Nick McDonald, Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd., re: Craighurst Secondary Plan be received and adopted. 2. That it is recommended to Council to support, in principle, future development in Craighurst on the basis of full municipal services. 3. That Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd. be authorized to prepare three Concept Plans for the Craighurst Settlement Area based on the premise that development will be serviced by municipal sewer and water services in accordance with Provincial Policy. 4. That the presentation of the three Concept Plans and the holding of two open houses, to be held in the Craighurst community, to present and obtain comments on the Concept Plans in the Fall of 2008 be authorized. 5. And Further That a draft Secondary Plan for Craighurst be presented to Planning Advisory Committee before a decision is made to hold a formal public meeting under the provisions of the Planning Act." And Whereas the recommendation was defeated by the Planning Advisory Committee as documented by Motion No. PAC080623-4; Now Therefore, Council endorses the Planning Advisory Committee recommendation to defeat the aforementioned recommendation. Defeated. Excerpt from draft Council Minutes of June 25, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Recorded Vote Requested t Cauncillar Evans Deputy Mayor Haugh Councillor Agnew Cauncillar Allison Councillor Coutanche Councillor Crawford Mayor H.S. Hughes sy Councillor Evans Nay Nay Yea Nay Nay Nay Nay Motion No. C(}$0625-37 Maned by Coutanche, Seconded by Evans 1. Be it resolved that Council support, in principle, future development in Craighurst on the basis of full municipal services. 2. That Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd. be authorized to prepare three Concept Plans for the Craighurst Settlement Area based on the premise that development will be serviced by municipal sewer and water services in accordance with Provincial Policy. 3. That the presentation of the three Concept Plans and the holding of two open houses, to be held in the Craighurst community, to present and obtain comments on the Concept Plans in the Fall of 2008 be authorized. 4. And Further That a draft Secondary Plan for Craighurst be presented to Council before a decision is made to hold a formal public meeting under the provisions of the Planning Act. Carried. Motion No. C080625-38 Moved by Agnew, Seconded by Allison Be it resolved that a volunteer Working Group be established to work, in conjunction with the Planning Consultants, in the preparation of the 3 Concept Plans for the Craighurst Settlement Area; And That the volunteer Working Group be comprised of Mayor H.S. Hughes, the Ward Councillor, 1 representative from Planning Advisory Committee, 1 representative from Simcae Muskoka District Health Unit and 2 residents of Craighurst. Carried. Excerpt from draft Council Minutes of June 25, 2008 Page 3 of 3 i ! ~ ~ ' f ~ ~~ ~ ~;, ~ `)t Report to: Council ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 1'~= ~~x ~` -~ ~ T 4t~~~~ From: Planning Advisory Committee Subject: Remuneration of Planning Advisory Committee Members Background; At the beginning of the term of the current Council, a request went out seeking public representation on the Planning Advisory Committee. Applications were received and in January 2007 letters of appointment went out. During the interview process it was indicated to the candidates that mileage and a per diem of $75 would be received for each meeting. Subsequent to this appointment and without the knowledge of or discussion with the appointees, Council proceeded to amend the By-law (# 2004-124} which established these rates and by means of By-law # 2007-20 passed on Feb. 14t'', 2007 and further by By-law # 69 passed on June 27~', 2007, established new rates for all existing committees at a per diem of $40 except for the Committee of Adjustment which remained at the previous rate of $75. It was also noted that Council members receive a per diem of $75 for all committee meetings. Discussion: The first issue of concern to PAC is the lack of communication and/or discussion of the intent to revise the per diem rate. The rates were revised after the interview and appointment process and there was sufficient time for appropriate dialogue. The second issue of concern is the lack of specific notification of the rate change to the committee members affected either of by-law #2007-20 or the further by-law #2007-69. As there is no staff report or other background to this decision pasted on the website it is difficult for us to understand the rationale behind this change. In the absence of this rationale, certain negative messages can be speculated on: z E ~{ J a} Is the value of the input of the public (voting} members somehow less valuable than those of the members of Council (non-voting)? b} Does Council rate the value of the work of the Committee of Adjustment at almost double that of the PAC? With respect to item a}, it is our contention that the reason Council has a Planning Advisory Committee at all is to provide a perspective to planning issues that individual councilors are unable to provide either because of their lack of technical background or by political constraints. You have presumably sought aut and appointed qualified public representatives to fill that gap. To think otherwise is to cast us in the role of being the "token" public input to somehow legitimize council decisions. With respect to item b}, indications are that the work of PAC is most important to the Council as evidenced by the fact that it is the only public committee that all of council has chosen to be part of. It is further evidenced in the staff report of Dee. 11/06 to Committee of the Whale where it says "Planning Advisory Committee could focus on the broader development applications and review of mare complex types of applications". Financial lmplica#ions: Using last year as an example, there were 28 public member per diems paid. Therefore the extra cost for 2007 to implement this recommendation would be 28 x $35 = $980. Assuming there are no absentees, the maximum per meeting additional cost for this and future years would be $175lmeeting or, on a yearly basis (assuming we don't have too many cancelled meetings}, less than $1500. Conclusions: The Planning Advisory Committee has been recruited from a pool of talented local citizens who have agreed to devote their skills to the objective of long range planning in the municipality. There is a requirement for the municipality to update its' Official Plan every 5 3 -' ~ ~ ~~Y~ years and it is therefore important that examination of the latest planning and technological advances be brought to bear on this exercise in a continuing manner. This requires not only review of complex planning applications but also assessing what the vision of the township should be and what direction should be formulated to achieve that vision. The members of the Planning Advisory Committee feel strongly that we should be sitting at the table as equal partners in these deliberations and therefore make the following recommendation: Recommendation: It is recommended that 1. That this report be received by Council and 2, That Council passes the appropriate by-law to re-establish the rate of per diem for members of the Planning Advisory Committee to $75 far the entire term (4 years) of their office. Respectfully submitted by the following PAC members: Tom Kurtz ,`` Linda Babulic -~"s-~ -~ -~ r, ~ ' ~ r ~., ,~f/ ,~,~~ ~ G,~, ;`~. Mary (}'Farrell-Bowers ~ ~`,~ ~ ~.- Larry Tupling r"} ~ ~~ ~1. - , Roy Hastings ~~'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~?f ~~~ ~, ; Dated: %~~Y,~.: ~~;` ~..r r r *.,i ~.x fFtZ C'Ui3?tHi,t7NEV rrr. TttL r- "..", ` . 4r r~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ -~:~ ti.: ~ " ~," ~ - `-- ~. ~' rte; r ...__..._... `~'`~,~_.:,,., ~ 1~,,. 1...*f ~~' it AP~Pt~INTMENT~ Tt~ CO~MITTEE~ The Township of Qrc,,-Me~lc~nte will be receiving applications l`c~r Appointments tQ the ~omrnittees listed belnw. Electors of the Ta~rnship cif turd-Medonte who desire to have their names considered lar Appointment or Re-appointment are tc~ submit same for consideration by council. Applrcants should state the committee far ~rhich the application is made, the reasons for a}~plying and a short resume. The fQllc~wing pc~sitipns are to be filled: 1 j Planning Advisory Committee - 5 members of the public fflur year term. ~onsideratian may be given to electors representing the 5 Township wards. ~2~ Accessibility Advisory Committee • 3 members of the public - fouryear term. Acct~rding to the C~ntarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 the ~omm~ltee shell be structured to ir~lude a ma~t~rity pf persons with disabilities. Therefore 24 meet the requirements of the Act, at least 2 members of the public must bre persons with disat~ilities. till applications are to be received by the undersigned Qn or before ~:3t~ ~n Friday, ,~anuary 5, 2~C17. For fiurtt~er infc~rrnatiran, please contact: Douglas Irwin, clerk gox 1 t~C?, 1 ~8 Line ? S©uth ter©, ON LOb 2~C~7 Telephone: {7C~~) ~.$7-2171 C Fax. ~70~} 437-0133 ar Email: d~rwm ~-Qro-medonte c~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~~ :_ t`t iE t~Qf1~~[~,~Tlc~N ~7F ~t'tE i1~ ~ n~ ~[ ZXO ;~, ~ ~~s~, i~ z i i ~t ~-~ _^~r0-tl'ii i ~ _.Cd January 29, 2007 Ms. Linda Babulic 3912 Eighth Line North RR #4 Coldwater, ON LOK 1 EO u~ On behalf of Council, I wish to extend congratulations on your successful appointment to the Planning Advisory Committee. Meetings will be scheduled on alternate Mondays, as required, at the Township Office in the Council Chambers. A Planning Advisory Committee Orientation will be scheduled. Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services will be in contact with you regarding the timing and details of the Orientation. Remuneration is calculated through the meeting attendance sheets and this will be reviewed with you at the Orientation. Thank you for your interest in working on behalf of the residents of Oro-Medonte. Yours sincerely, --- H.S. Hughes Mayor cc: Members of Council Bruce Hoppe, Director of Building and Planning Services d W ~~ ~a ~~ ~a a .~ ''i~w '}~`w ~•r ~Vr.~ ..+ ;. ~r ///~ `y r~ `1rd ~ , ~i'''~ ~~ o a ~~ aC ~ a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~, •- ~ ~ .c ~v ~r. ~•~. ..±~ 'iw a •, V (~ 44V `fir O ~, co H ~~ \~ 0 wr• r~ au 0 u a~ ~' ,~ w Q~ `i.r '~I.w M ~` 0 •~ •~ a t~ .~ .~ .~ 'fir ~- "r 1~I~Y EMI/ tt~ wI •~ '~ni ~WR W .` .c~ 0 ., .~ ,o a~ cu Excerpt from Committee of the Whole Minutes of July 16, 2008 c) Deputy Mayor Nough, re: Planning Advisory Committee Remuneration [deferred from June 11, 2008]. Motion No. CW080~16-16 Moved by Agnew, Seconded by Coutanche It is recommended that the rate of per diem far the voting members of the Planning Advisory Gommittee be established to $75.00 for the four year office term of 2006-2010. Defeated. ~~t~`. 1' t~ %~ l '. .~. ACTIVITY FACTS _.. I Advertisements for __ Newspaper Ad makes Committees of Adjustment Nt) MENTIt}N OF RENUMERTION and Rec Tec Committee 2 Surrounding Municipalities Oro-Medonte was compensating higher than contacted to compare the all other municipalities. The only exception compensation for was Springwater that was compensating its committee work Committee of Adjustment at the same rate. The City of Orillia paid a $300 flat fee with reduced when meetings were missed. With the exception of Committee of Adjustment most other municipalities paid no compensation, Most municipalities do not have ublic members an Plannin Advisory. 3 Staff recommended that Advertisements far Public Members of Oro-Medonte PAC consist Committees were done in two stages. The of elected members only. first being Committee of Adjustment and the Council decided to Second being Planning Advisory and continue with public Accessibility Advisory. In all cases there re resentation. was NO MENTION OF RENUMERATION 4 Applications were reviewed Approximately 40 applications were and it was determined that received for 13 openings. there was a keen interest and quality credentials anion those who ap lied. 5 A decision was made to All applicants were "interviewed". Planning utilize the skills and input Advisory continued to include 5 public of the applicants as much members. The Rec. Tec Committee was as passible and to ensure expanded by 2 public members and the that all applicants were Accessibility Committee was expanded by 1 given consideration. member. OMEGA was created and all those who applied and were not placed on other committees were invited to join OMEGA. This was an increase of approximately 25 ublic members. b During the "interview" All those "interviewed" indicated that process every applicant was compensation was not important and some asked about expectations were surprised to learn that compensation for compensation and the could be received. (See newspaper ad). This relationship between was a specific question asked of all compensation and the applicants making it extremely unlikely that willingness to work on a the amount of compensation would be stated committee. at this time. Council was still in the "fact finding stage" and had not determined the amount of cam ensation. 7 13~~~~d on the infE~rr~~atiorl "Che revised by-law still has higher fmn~ other municipalities compensation for public; r»cmbers than any and the unanimous other municipality surveyed with the response from all. the exception of Springwater who pays applicants that the amount Committee of Adjustment the same amount. of compensation had no Springwater does not have public importance as many representation on it PAC. considered the work to be a Different rates of remuneration for public community service and members on committees is consistent with many had not expected all other municipalities surveyed. remuneration. Council Due to budget implications a choice was asked staff to prepare a by- made to adjust compensation to enable law that would change increased public participation. com ensation rates 8 Membership on Letters dated January 29, 2007 were sent to Committees was all PAC members stating: "Remuneration is determined and a letter was calculated through the meeting attendance sent to all applicants. sheets and this will' be reviewed with you at the Orientation." On May 19, .2007 the Orientation Meeting was held. The PowerPoint presentation used has Remuneration listed. No concerns with the amount of remuneration were ex ressed. 9 Following feedback from The by-law was passed on Feb. lA~, 2007 and all individuals concerned became a matter of public record accessible and the information from on the Township website. the orientation meeting While there are differences in the amount of Council passed a by-law compensation the $40 per meeting for adjusting compensation committee meeting is considered an rates honorarium. By tradition honorariums are not intended to be related to value of services. T-4 are not issued for honorariums, T-4 slips are issue to committee members receiving mare than $40 per meeting. Members of working groups, including council members, receive no compensation or mileage. 10 A request was made by Changing the compensation far PAC has PAC to retroactively wide sweeping implications. While it might increase compensation to be put forth that total amount is relatively all members of PAC. small, the implications for similar requests Council did not approve for other committees and working groups this request. are substaintial. Granting this request could result in a lower "after tax" compensation. ;;~~~w<; ,, , ,; x• 'a -~ TQWlVSHlP QF C)RC1-MED4lVTE F2EPt~RT Report No. To: Prepared By: DS 2008-044 Committee of the Whole Glenn White, Senior Planner, MCIP, RPP Meeting Date: Subject: Motion # July 16, 2008 Planning Advisory Committee Mandate -procedural options _._. Roll #: R.M.S. File #: RECUMMENDATItJN(S): Requires Action ~( For Information Qnly It is recommended: 1. THAT Report No. DS 2008-444 be received and adapted; 2. THAT Council amends the mandate of the Planning Advisory Committee, to remove the "to make recommendations to Council with respect to Planning matters.'" 3. THAT Council delegates the authority to staff to schedule statutory public meetings as required under the Planning Act far all development applications; 4. AND THAT the Clerk bring forward the appropriate By-law far Council's consideration. BACKGROUND: This report is brought before Committee of the Whole as result of Motion CO$0825.23 of June 25, 2008. In recent months, there have been concerns raised by Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), Council, as weN as, applicants and staff regarding the current PAC operations. More specifically, same PAC agenda items have been questioned as to the relevancy and function that Council intended for the Committee. On a related matter, Council endorsed earlier this year Report DS 2008-025 concerning the Development Services Departmental process review. One of the main objectives of this review was to look at ways to improve customer service, which is also in keeping with the 2008-2010 Council Mandate. ~,. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT July 16, 2008 Report No. DS 2008-044 Page 1 of 4 _ ~~,. The purpose of this report is to review these m~~tters ~~nd provide Council with recommendations in respect of possible improvements to the current Planning Advisory Committee process and function. AN~-LYSIS; Attached to this report as Appendix 1 is the current PAC mandate, which contains three major directives as articulated in Section 1 of By-law No. 2007-004: • Ta act as an advisory body to Council. • Ta make recommendations to Council with respect to planning matters. • Ta advise Council with respect to planning policy. Presently, the Planning Advisory Committee is an advisory body to Council related to planning matters and planning policy. Planning Advisory Committee can give advice to Council on planning policy which Council may utilize along with input from others, such as, staff, outside agencies and the residents, to make Planning Policy. The advisory role of the Planning Advisory Committee can be an important asset for Council to draw upon when Council is making the decisions on planning policy and planning matters. Clearly, the mandate of the Planning Advisory Committee is to advise Council, and it is Council's role to make decisions on planning matters and planning policy. The second bullet point speaks to making recommendations with respect to planning matters. It is staff's view that this captures reviewing development applications including plans of subdivision and Official PIanlZoning By-law Amendments. There has been some concern expressed with regard to this being a reactionary function rather than apro-active role. The third bullet relates to planning policy, which would include broader areas of study, including Provincial initiatives such as the Places to Grow document, the Clean Water Act, the proposed Lake Simcoe Act, all of which relate to amendments via conformity exercises to the Township's Officio! Plan. Other policy related examples would include such items as the Oro Moraine Study which formed part of the 2003 Official Plan review. Staff believe that there is merit for the Committee to continue to provide guidance and advice on the policy perspective. This is especially important given the degree of regulatory changes in recent years, as the need to review new and emerging legislation and its impact on the Township's Official Plan, will be a greater role in the foreseeable future. The development review function as outlined in the second bullet can be more readily dealt with by Council/COW directly, which would be more expeditious from a timing perspective given the agenda space available with four meeting cycles per month as opposed to a singular monthly meeting. Therefore, Council would take the direct responsibility and consideration regarding the development review function for planning applications. Presently, some applications are dealt with by PAC and the Committee of DEVE~QPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT July 16, 2008 Report No. DS 2008-044 Page 2 of 4 Adjustment (i.e. lot severances a a result of Official Plan Amendment applications). The removal of the development review function by PAC would eliminate the need for PAC to determine the appropriateness of these applications to amend the Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law related to severances which will be considered by the Committee of Adjustment. This would remove the need for two committees dealing with the appropriateness of the severance. Council would deal directly with the appropriateness of the Official Plan and Zoning Amendment applications. In addition, staff feels that there is merit in terms of improving timelines to applicants regarding the current reporting structure. At present, there are generally two planning reports that are prepared; the first one is a general overview that outlines the proposal and usually recommends proceeding to a statutory public meeting. After the public meeting, a recommendation report is prepared which provides a mare in-depth analysis. Many municipalities direct that the Planning Department automatically schedule a pubiic meeting which removes the need for the preliminary planning report and associated timelines. Council can be made aware of upcoming public meetings via internal mail circulation packages, which can be discussed with staff if there are particular concerns or questions relating to projects which may be of concern to constituents. Staff conducted a review of nine surrounding municipalities to determine if any have a similar Planning Advisory Committee structure. Three municipalities have a PlanninglDevelopment Committee, but none of these municipalities have public members appointed to their committees. FINANCIAL: •~ •..F.F,•v„~t., ~r ~.t,~.lll~ll, ~IIC ICII~UVai ui uje aeveiopment review function of PAC would also eliminate the need for PAC members to attend statutory public meetings. As some of these meetings are held during Council meetings on the 2"d or 4t" Wednesday evenings, there are some minor savings for per diems being paid to PAC members. PULICIESILEGISLATION: ~v • ~•.a• ~~ ~1~ ~y r-tvt, / \. V.4.1. 1.7:111 CONSULTATIONS: v~~.v~ •we~ni n..ou Gtlvc.. VIIILGI Senior Planner Other municipalities ATTACHMENTS: Q~. 1., R1,. nnn~ nn w vY iu vv ~ rv. ~vv l -v V't coivc~usloN: ~f is rnnnrxm~^.n~J.~,.J aL... a. !"`_.:._ _:i •- •-- • ~ ,~•.u~ta t, lat Vt,u, ll.ll 1.1111J1i1Cr arT~entaments to the try-yaw in respect to the Planning Advisory Committee in order to refine their role and improve the operational DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT July 16, 2008 Report No. DS 2008-044 Page 3 of 4 efficiency of the Planning Division in respect of processing times related to development applications. RespectfuNy submitted: Tenn White, IVICIP, RPP Senior Planner SMT Approval !Comments. C.A.D. Approval /Comments: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Juty 16, 20Q8 Report No. DS 20Q8-044 Page 4 of 4 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE BY-LAW NO.200T-004 A By-law to Appoint a Punning Advisory Gommittee And to Repeal 8y-law Nos. 2001-009 and 2004-036 WHEREAS Section 8, subsection 1 of the Punning Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.t3, as amended, provides that the Council of a municipality may appoint a Planning Advisory Committee composed of such persons as the Council may determine; AND WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to do so; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of OraMedonte hereby enacts as follows: 1. That the mandate of the Caro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee is: • To act as an advisory body to Council. • To make recommendations to Council with respect to planning matters. • To advise Council with respect to planning policy. 2. That five {5) members of the public shall be appointed as members of the Ora-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee for the term of the Council that appointed them or until their successors are appointed. Where a member ceases to be a member before the expiration of his or her term, Council may appoint another eligible person for the unexpired portion of the term. 3. That the Mayor and atl members of Council shall be non-voting members of the Ora Medonte Planning Advisory Committee. 4. That persons appointed to the Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee shaii be paid such remuneration and expenses as Council provides. 5. That By-law Nos. 2001-1709 and 2004-036 are hereby repealed in their entirety_ 6. This by-law shaii take effect on the final passing thereof. 8Y-LAW READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THiS 10T" DAY OF JANUARY, 200T. 8Y-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 24T" DAY OF JANUARY, zaoT. THE CO ORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE ayar, .Hug s ~~~ Ci , J. Daug~a' Irwin ~~lr'.i-11 -~+:~C~B 1 i :ij t T~ ~tJN~CiCP ~ ~~` ~'Iir:!-:"?CC~~:!NTC; s;l11 v`~i~;;3 lei i~~i F,~:t a'h r~,3 1515 r,IRCI ?~ ~F~LT:a 1_~F` '~ i~r ','~~i7~3 ~IRa V ~~~..IS LI.P ~ .~ Barristers and 5attcltors ~hnstopher ,! w1lligm9 DircCt. 41®. $85.1745 f~-rn8!t` switltairrt9~~~rdberlts Ccim August 11, 2x08 File No. 89892 vlA t=acstni~t~E County of S-mcoe 1110 Highway 26 Midhut~t, C}N ~Ol. iX0 Attention: Mr. Glenn Knox Clerk Clear Sir: Re: County of Stmcoe Draft Official Plan - Submtsslons of the Township of Oro-fiAedonte Introduction We are the solicitors for the Corporation of the Township of ©ro-Medonte (hereinafter the "Township"}, Following review of the County of Simcoe C7raft Offiraal Plan {hereinafter the "Draft Plan") by Township Staff and its consultants, we have been instructed to provide the foNowing submissions to the County Council. These submissions constitute our client's submissions pursuant to subsection 17(20} of the Planning Act for the purposes of subsection 17(24) of the Panning Acf. We may provide further and/or other submissions prior to or at the meeting of County Council to consider adoption of the Draft Plan. We request notices of any formal or informal meetings regarding the Draft Plan as welt as the written notices as provided for in subsections 17{23) and 17{35) of the Planning Act. The Township submissions regarding the Draft Plan are divided into 3 parts and relate to' ~_ Section 3.5 Settlements, section 3.4 Land Use designations, and Schedule 5.1, specifically as they relate to Craighurst Settlement Area; 2. Section 3.4 Land Use designation, section 3.5 Settlements, and Schedule 5.1, specifically as they relate to IndustrialJEmployment Uses along Highway 11 currently designated for such uses in the Township C+fficial Plan; and 3. Section 3.4 land Use designation and Schedule 5.1, spec~cally as they relate to the Edgar Special Policy Area, 1. CraiS~hurst Settlement Area The graft Plan contains very prescriptive policies regarding expansion or development of new settlement areas. Settlement areas are (fisted in Schedule S.1 of the Draft Plan and include the Craighurst Settlement Area. The boundaries of the Craighurst Settlement Area are specifically described on the Schedule 5.1 Map and simply reflect existing urban ~Ct~~ 1 I-,,C~OE3 1 r r),3 m~~WN~HIP +:~F ~ ~~C~-M~~~:~NT~ P.Ut~3, ittJB '+tt/11.v~aii~3 tt; yip) I`a;;{ d't; >3~3 1515 BIRD ~ ~EFLI:1 t_~P i1v~t'i~}~ August 11, 2ti08 Page 2 development. The Township C?ffcia) Plan however, contains specific policies regarding Craighurst and envisions it as a major full service settlement area with an anticipated 7Q0 new lots pending completion of a Secondary Plan and related studies. That Secondary Plan study is now almost completed having been interrupted by the 1GAP process. The proposed boundaries of the Craighurst Settlement Area are substantially larger than the boundaries illustrated an the Draft Plan. The policy of establishing a major settlement area in Craighurst has been known to the Gounty throughout the Township's Crffciai Plan process since the mid-19$0's and was actively supported by the County during an Ontario Municipal Board hearing denting with the Township's settlement area strategy in 24t}t3, At that hearing, the Township and the Gounty both called planning and growth management evidence and made submissions that {amongst other matters) supported a larger settlement area in Craighurst with an anticipated 7Qp new lots. It was in part for this reason that the Ontario Municipal Board refused appeals which would have de facto created another settlement area in the general vicinity of Craighurst. It should also be noted, that the Township's settlement strategy and the Craighurst settlement area were specifically dean with through the Township's five-year Official Plan Review with the full participation of the County of Simcae as the Township's approval authority. The ongoing Craighurst Secondary Plan process has had the full involvement of the County and would require County approval as the Township's approval authority for pfficial Plan amendments. The Craighurst Secondary Plan has been proceeded with entirely in accordance with the policies of the Township Cifficial Plan and the currently in effect, County Official Plan. Both its methodology and its conclusions further the thrust and intent of the Draft Official Plan as regards to full service settlement areas. For your information we have attached a chart outlining the history and progress of the Craighurst Secondary Pfan. The mapping contained at Schedule 5.1 of the Draft Plan when read with the settlement area policies in section 3.5.6 would necessitate an amendment to the Draft Plan (if approved) which is entirely unwarranted and unnecessary given the extensive history and involvement by the County in the Craighurst Secondary Plan process in the Township Official Pian. Therefore, the Township requests that the Draft Plan be mod~ed to include an exception in section 3.5.19 of the Draft Plan to state as fallows~ "Notwithstanding the mapping in Schedule 5.1, the area and boundaries of the Craighurst Settlement Area in the Township of Oro-Medonte shat) be as determined by the Secondary Plan currently being considered in accordance with Section AA.2.4 of me Official Plan for the Township of Oro-Medonte." AIRD ~i BERL.IS ~, o AITta- 11-~~~~~~8 1 r .~~3 'C~'t.~N~HIP ryrp r ~,~ ~ M~.r~~~NT~ F'.t)~ ~k i~r~E~ vs3;'?lf~r;r~3 '~ rii~ FA;K ~ltt~ :!~3 115 r.I(?0 ?+ PEPLI:~ LAP !~ilr'r~}r~`t,ri!',3 a~~~~t ~ ~, zoos Page ~ and the County clarify that the population projections at Table ! of the Draft Plan do not include the projected 700 new lots in Craighurst which will be in addition. 2. Highway 11 tndustriallEmplovment Uses The Township Official Plan designates certain lands adjacent to or fronting on Highway 11 for Industrial uses in addition to the Industrial/Commercial uses permuted in the Ora- Centre Secondary plan. These designations permit in accordance with the Township Official Plan a variety of Employment uses. These Employment designations have been in place since the Township Official Plan's enactment in 1997 and the Ora-Centre since its enactment in 2002 and approval by the County. The Highway 11 Industrial designations were considered and confirmed during the Township"s five-year Official Plan Review with the full participation and support of the County. However, with the exceptions of the Guthrie Settlement Area and the Lake Simcog Airport Special Development Area, the subject lands are designated in the Draft Plan on Schedule 5.1 as either Greenland or Agriculture. Moving reviewed those policies, the uses contemplated by the Township's Industrial designations andlor the Oro-Centre Secondary Plan designation may not be permitted. This would create a significant and unwarranted conflict between the Plans. Therefore, we request a stetrament regarding Employment uses which reflects and supports Employment uses as already provided in the Township's Official Plans. 3. fi=dget Special Policy Area The Township Official Plan designates lands of the former Edgar Occupation Centre in a Special Policy Ares designation which would recognize the existing infrastructure and buildings potential being capable of being adapted to a number of re-development uses. This Special Policy Area designation has been in place since the Township Official Plan Amendment Number 5 enactment in 1999 and approval t1y the County in 1999, The Special Polley Area designation was considered and confirmed during the Township's five-year Officio! Plan Review with the full participation and support of the County. However, the subject lands are designated in the graft Plan as Greenland and Rural. Having reviewed those policies, the uses contemplated by the Township's Special Policy Area designation could not be permitted. This creates yet another significant and unwarranted conflict between the Plans. Therefore, we request a recognition of the Edgar Specie! Policy Area as already provided in the Township's Official Plan. GonClusio~ Therefore, for the reasons noted above, we are instructed to request on behalf of the Township khe modifications as set out above to the Draft Plan. These submissions and At~>d ~ Bus up ,~. , A~tja- l i °:~C!C~~3 1 r :,j.3 T~ AWN-:HIP r ~P ~=;FZt~a-MEDC~NTE ~r~t'tlr;'~)n;3 'B ~)1 F,k;~{ a1~ '.';6~ 115 r`,I~CI .~, ~(~F?~IS LLP August 11, 2008 Page 4 P.uii~; ~u~~H such modifications simply reflect the County's historic posititan regarding the Craighurst Settlement Area, Edgar Special Policy Area and Employment uses an the Highway 11 carridor through the Township of Oro-M$donte. Failure to amend the Draft Plan as requested witl result in a sign cant conflict with the approved Township C}fficial Plan, the Oro-Centre Secondary Ptan and the Craighurst Secondary Plan process which is entirely unnecessary and is contrary to the public interest. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Our clients, their staff and consultants would be pleased to meet with the County regarding resolution of these issues. We anticipate a representative of Township Council will make an oral submission at the public meeting an August 13, 200$. Yaurs very truly, AIRO ~ BERLIS ALP f ,- ~,./ , Christ r J. Williams CJW~19 Encl. ee: Mayor Harry Hughes Members of Township Council Robin Dunn, CAO Andria Leigh, Dir~tor of Development Sorvices Nick fvlcDpnald, Meridian Planning 4226644.1 Alin ~ P>LRLts ~ ~ p ~~- 5 AU13-1 1-3009 17:03 '1'~~WNSH I P ~~F ~=SRO-MED~~~NTE ~~gi t t; ~OOe 16 r~~ 1 F,AN 4 i6 363 1515 BIRD ~~ BERLIS LLP P . ~ i06%008 ~1 ~)i)BI~~OS February 1997 ?ownship of Uro-Medoute Approved OfBcia! Plan ider,ri6p Csfficiat P1aA Csuat as one of two major Settkment Arccw in which a Secoadat~ Plstn, will be complct~ccd. Late 1999 Craigfiuret Secondary Plw Initiadvn of 5ecoadac~ Platt and completion of work program, May 2000 Cra~ghurst Secondary Pl,a - r?YS~„;,,..a techaieal iosoea rdatiag to Phase 1 Baclc~cound watts supply, sanitary srwer treatmer<t, Sig Report scormwatee nnaaa{,'ement, and transportation for Secondary Plan Area. August 2000 Ccaighurst Secondary Plan - E~miaed arras of protection, Phase I Euvironmennl development eett-acks sad dt:vtloptneat Background Study arena for Secondary Plan arts. 2000/2001 Crughurat Secondary Pisa Completion of pubfie open house slid public meetings. January 16, 2001 Nottawasagt Valley CocrespondtACC eoa5rming Secondary Conservsrion Authority Plan Area boundatry, November 2001 Craighutat Development Three development options were Chpaons presented in which devebpment oa full municipal services was deemed the moat euitabk. Both growth options included the expanded ecttiemeat alts bonadary, The third o lion was no 2001 Oro Moraine Land Use Plan ~myGd cocapktion of Secotidacp Pisa, identifies Craighurat ~ a growth area witbtitc the limits of the Secontiaty Play area. August 2003 dPA 16 xad 17 Council adopts both OPA 16 sad 17. Ptefet+eaee for fib aerwicta is Ct~aighurst coa6tmcd. PoHq- eupporticig development of Craighu,rst on the Otv Motuiae conBrmtd. ptTta-- 11-::~)Ci8 i r: i7:~ T'°~'~JN."H I P t;t~' r~iRt)-MEL~~wtNTE '?~! ~ U"~~o~ 16 ~)1 ~~~ ~31~ ~~.3 1515 ,4I~D ,~ ~ERI~I.~ LL ~ P.C~u7.-~~«8 ;~ i)~,i' jp~)~3 2004 TRC}W Enginec°ng - Dix`ecdoa from Township oo complete Ct~aighurst Master ;~trvicting Master Servicing Report Report Mid 2!}04 Inter Cove-rntt~cntal Action Initiatiots of study which delayed the Plan {IGAP) cotnpleaon of Craighutgt Secondary Plan. Novetubcr 10, QPA 1dj17 Approved by the County of Sixncoe wiith 2004 etttensive mcxiiScatioas -none changed Craighurst policy framework L7ecembst 2004 OPA 16/17 Both UPA's wenC appealed March 2005 TRC1W >":ngiaeenug - Report completed and presented ao Craighutat Maatcr Servicing Committee of the Whole ou A.pril 6, 2005, Report Crasghurst Secondary Plan Meeting with the County of Simcot and Ministry of Environment ro de&ne aced obtain support on proceed with Secondary Flan. Jana 2ob5 Craighurst Secondary Plan I.ttter from Mittisay of Environment on TRC)W Engineering Master Ser+ricing Report. November 2(X}6 Meeting With Intent was to obtain support for CountyJMMAH compktian of secondary plan to provide basis for development of full service community. Hoch supported the Townshi 's efforts. Cktober 2007 Craighurst Secondary Plan ~ Public Information Sesaioa January 24, 2007 CaPA 16/17 Final dMB approval -- 4MB refused estatt development on basis that laced supply was sufficient with that land supply itscluding 700 units in Craighutet Lace 2007 ~ SH retained Council retains TSH to complete engineering A1'~ : l i ~sQ~~B 17 ; ~1~ T~_~WN~=,H t P ~ ;~' ~~~~,~ ~~~..r ;ANTE r;~~~ i f ?u~~i3 i~ ~i t FR:K ~ 1b ~~;:3 15 ;5 ~:It~(1 ~ E~ERI.I ~ l LP ~'. ~~4~H, ~ ~~ y May 240$ C:t`a~turst 5econd~- Plan Class F•tlviroamtats~l Asecsamtat Preseatatioa to Coun~«1 July 6a', 24Q8 ~ C:raighurst Scconda~y ~ Cotiacil initiated pyan session, From: Pat & Jim Sent: Sunday, duly 27, 2048 6.~4 AM To: Bender, Ian Subject: SI.doc SIMCOE COUNTY WILL COUI~'l 1~i i t-. ~ ~~ it ~ ~ti BIJ'1' Nt ~~i~ ~lllk FEES An open letter to Simcoe County ~'uu~tcil and the t•;<litors Ladies and Gentlemen: The Environmental Impact Statement {EIS} is the Erst line of defense for the County's environment. Only about 20°l0 of the plants and animals found in the County will be protected under the policies of the revised Official Flan. The scientific explanation for this is that there is no requirement that the EIS include data on invenebrate animals (i.e. bees, butterflies, snails and spiders} which make up about 65°!0 of animal species. Only vertebrate animals (i.e. birds, mammals, fish, snakes, etc) wilt be studied. Likewise there is no requirement that the EIS include data on non-vascular plants (i.e, mosses and mushrooms, etc.) Only vascular plants (trilliums, birch trees, etc.) will be listed. Any species of plants or animals may be listed as endangered or threatened so it is vital that all plant and animal species be included in the EIS study. The occurrence of an endangered or threatened brings special protection measures under Federal and Provincial Species at Risk Acts. There are vague requirements when the field work should be conducted and the frequency of visits to the proposed development property is unclear. Field work should be conducted from April to September. There should be at least 3 visits a month {4 in May and June -the peak of the breeding bird season). Field work ideally would be conducted by scientists from the County and the proponent visiting the site together. They should write ajoint/separate EIS report. This will ensure accuracy in reporting the occu~Tence of endangered or threatened species. It will speed up the approval process. "There should be a survey of bethnie macroinvertebrates with respect to water pollution sensitivity. Their abundance and diversity have been used as an indicator of ecosystem health and local biodiversity. 1 suggest that the County establish an Ecological Advisory Committee to advise the Council on environmental matters. Some of the best naturalists in Ontario live in Simcoe County -Margo Hott, Bob Bowies, Nancy Ironside, Alex Mills, Pat Woodford and Greg Sadowski - to name a few. [ would be prepared to make a presentation on this important matter to County Council. Jim Woodford, Resident Township of Oro-Medonte Chair, Science for take Simcoe Member of Royal Ontario Museum staff for 10 years and former executive director of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists (now Ontario Nature) This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by VPNetworksj2.}, and is believed to be clean. 54 NOT ONE SQUARE MM OF GREENLANDS IS PROTECTED BY SIMCOE COUNTY IN NEW OFFICIAL PLAN Ladies and Gentlemen of Simcoe County Council and Editors: The new Simcoe County Official Plan (OP} states there will be na development in Category I of Greenlands. This includes significant habitat of endangered and threatened species and wetlands 4.5 hectare or larger. In a disturbing lack of environmental knowledge the authors of the new OP failed to recognize that these lands are already protected by Federal and Provincial laws and regulations and do not need protection by the County Greenlands Category 2 is where the County should take action to protect significant wildlife habitat and areas of natural and scientific interest. Development may be allowed in Category 2 after a "satisfactory" Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The authors of the new OP should explain why an EIS is required in areas that have already had scientific assessments. The criteria for Simcoe County EIS's are not based on ecological science. Only about 20% of the plants and animals will be surveyed. It is an environmental "snapshot" rather than a feature film. The following types of development are permitted within Greenlands Category 2 - sand and gravel pits and wayside pits and quarries. County Council said there was no need for a statement on environmental protection in the Growth Plan because the new Official Plan would provide protection. Not yet! Can a positive note the County is moving to purchase land to add to its County Forest network. The County Forester Graeme Davis has a program of "anthrapogenic succession" to gradually move Red Pine plantations to hardwood forests. [ volunteer to Chair a committee to advise Council an Greenland policies based on ecological science. Jim Woodford 55 ~d-to T: (905) 761.5588 F: (905} 761.5589 Toll Free: 1 (800) 813.9204 www.mhbcplaa.com isn. F. l;r.cNsi.glatan MA, FG1P, RPP Bernard F. i~iecrosrn MUDS, BES, MCII; RPP t aul R. B:ittnn BES, MC[P, RPP `~~ IIeziEC3?~;GOn MA, MCIP, RPP Is.-nes D. Pxr4~.i_- BES, MCIP, RPP ~-~ ?~, ~re.,e BFs %Cris r7;en~ra BES, BEd, MCIP, RPP MSc, MCIP, ItPP II?9e h .4.. i.CLSA_?1 BES, MCIP, RPP 12 August 2008 Warden Tony Guergis and Members Simcoe County Council County of Simcoe 1110 Highway 26 MIDHURST, Ontario LOL 1 XO Dear Warden Guergis and Members of Council: RE: PROPOSED COUNTY OF SIMCOE OFFICIAL PLAN and BUFFALO SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, GARGANO DEVELOPMENTS INC., TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE, OUR FILE Y327A, SUBDIVISION FILE 43T-91031, OMB FILE 0930065 Our firm represents Gargano Developments Inc. (Gargano) owners of the property known as "Buffalo Springs° in the Township of Oro- Medonte. The property, having an area of approximately 467 acres, is located in Lots 2 and 3, Concession 9 (Oro). The subject lands are illustrated on the attached Figure 1. In 1994 the Ontario Municipal Board approved, through Official Plan Amendment 39, a settlement node at the Buffalo Springs site. In addition, the Board draft approved a 230 lot plan of subdivision. Gargano recently purchased the site and is diligently working to satisfy all draft plan conditions relative to Phase 1 of the subdivision. Work is also progressing an satisfying conditions relative to the Phase 2 component of the plan {balance of approved plan). ;~2~~;~: Gargano has obtained confirmation that many of the draft plan `~=~~~=~~•~ conditions have now been satisfied. My client has incurred ~I~ughan .~.,,;,a, considerable expense in retaining engineering and environmental =Y-~~~~~~ consultants to satisfy all OMB imposed draft plan conditions. Also, "~`~iF Gargano has just awarded a road construction contract for road improvements at County Road 22 and the Ninth Line. City, Town and 12ural Planning Municipal Plans and Studies We have reviewed the Draft County of Simcoe Official Plan (the Plan) and offer the following comments for Council's consideration Land Development prior to adoption of the Official Plan: Urban Deign / Community Planning 1. The adopted Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan places the LandscapeArchitedure Buffalo Springs site in a Residential designation. This is not reflected in the proposed Plan and should be; Natural Resource and Aggregate Planning Expert Evidence and Mediation Project Management 2. The extent of the Rural land use designation and the Greenlands designation shown on Schedule 5.1 do not reflect the development approvals already in place on the Buffalo Springs site. In addition, the wetlands illustrated on Schedule 5.2.2 da not match the MNR approved on site wetland boundaries and should be modified accordingly; and 3. There needs to be a policy that the provisions of the draft Simcoe County Official Plan will not be applied retroactively to the Buffalo Springs site and that the new Plan will not prevent registration of the OMB approved draft plan of subdivision. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Yours truly, MHBC PLANNING ~ ' , , , ,~. W. Brent Clarkson, MA, MCIP, RPP Copy: Colin McGregor, Nano Manias, David Bunston, Randolf L Smith 4f~cial Plan Figure 1 Land Use Designations r"- ~' Subject Lands (Buffalo Springs) '~R i..w, ..~....^ Part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 9, Township of Oro-Medonte . Spedai Development Oak Ridges Monlne Ana _! Settlement .(Refer to Schedub 5.3.2 For Details) Scale l ; 30,000 Greenbatt Niagara Escarpment Land Use Boundary t'` ~ Greenland ~„„ (Beier to Schedule 5.3.1 For Details) Phystographic Aroas ~ Agrlcutturai Date: August 11, 2008 __ ,. ~~~ Rural DWG No. 1Y327{A120081AtJGUS'f1PLANNING REPORTFIGtR~E31`REPORTFIGURE3-At1G11-08'.dwrg ~~ l ~ : j ~. x,~,~,Hs r _. -~. :_ . ~ ._ .. Data Source: ProQosed County of Simcoe Official Plan -Schedule 5.2.2, August 2008.._ Official Plan Figure 2 Evaluated Wetlands ~.........) Subject Lands (Buffalo Springs) yO~ i.........+ Part of Lots 2 and 3, Concession 9, Township of Oro-Medonte ~, Provinaafly Significant Weiland (Classes 1,2 & 3) 000 Scale 1:30 t_ocauy Significant Wetland (Classes 4,5,6 &7) , Souroed fiom Ml~turst OisMq MNR Date: August 11,.2008 ~- DW(i No. \Y3271A\2008\AUOUST\PL/WNING REPORT FIdURE5\`REPORTFIGURES-AUG11-08'.dwp -- ~ -~ - ~ _. _ a ,_ , ._-. . . :; ~~ .;t G ~ ~~ k ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ August 12, 2008 Tony Guergis County Warden County of Simcoe Administration Centre 1110 Highway 26 Midhurst, ON LOL 1X0 7050 Weston Road, Suite #230 Woodbridge, Ontario L4L 8G7 Re: Proposed Official Plan County of Simcoe Jury 2008 z: (gas} ~blssas 109'! 402 Ontario Ltd. (Bidwell) F: (9115} 7b1.5589 Part of Lots 34, 35 and 36, Concession 1, Toll Free: I {800} 813.9204 Township of Oro-Medonte www.mhbcplan.com Our File No. Y328A fl:1 r i:tfT2:l.~i'_f~.:: MA, FC1P, RPP Dear Mr. GUergIS: Bernard E HermsF!t MUDS, BFS, MCIP, RPP We have had the opportunity to review the draft new Official Plan for the County of Simcoe on behalf of our client, 1091402 Ontario Ltd., and have the following Pu`'1 ~~ ~rittO° comments relating to lands located immediately south of Bidwell Road in Part of BES, MCIP, RPP Lots 34, 35 and 36, Concession 1, in the Township of Oro-Medante, and shown ~,a. ~n_ _.~ ca.~-~~~_ on the attached Figure. MA, MCIP, RPP The proposed Official Plan designates the entire lands as "Greenlands~. BES, MCIP, RPP Historically, the lands to the north have been developed for residential purposes. `-'~T-'''~''A='''" There is a small remnant parcel which represents a logical completion of the B~ existing development. In addition to proposed residential uses, the community ,_;~ w~F~~:i~, can be enhanced with the addition of institutional, employment and open space BES,BEa,MCIP,RPP uses to become a more complete community. On this basis, we request that the lands owned by 1091402 Ontario Ltd. as shown on the attached Figure be F identified as a Settlement on Figure 5.1 and be listed as such on Schedule 5.1 MSc N CIP RPP of the proposed Plan. ,_. ~,-, BES, MCIP, RPP We would like to meet with County Planning Staff to discuss these and other E,,_-i~,..~ h, concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. .:ar:~~_.:.. -vE,~~.a,: Yours truly, `~ -`'"~ MHBC PLANNING „_ ~ ~~ ~ city, r°Wn ana Kural Plann;ng Debra Walker, MBA, MCIP, RPP Municipal Plans and Studies C: Gten Knox, County Clerk Land Development Brian MacKe!!, Director of Planning & Development Urban Design ! lan Bender, Director -Planning, Policies & Special Projects community Planning Andrea Leigh, Township of Oro-Medonte Lau Orsi Landscape Architecture Natural Kesource and Aggregate Planning Expert Evidence and Mediation Project Management `~ ~... + ' i ~~ m m .,,ti,~„ . _ ~ _ . _ .~.~ ~~ ._.., ,.9.,., ` l: R ~ ~`'y ..r,.F f. a~ 1~ ~ i (~ `.Y6,.R ~ ~'~ ~~ „~. ~~ ~ ~ '. .. .. „~ . ~ ~ V ~ , _ __ _ _ ._ L ~ { ~~ .i 5 '.. 7t ' r ~ ~ + %' ~% ~ ~kf' 4a~,~` ~ t ~ Z ~ ; ., ~ . f ~ III x / ~+' ~S .~~i Data Source: Proposed County of Simcoe Official Plan -Schedule 5.1, August 2006 Official Plan Figure 1 Land Use Designations ~" "°"" "~ Subject Lands (Bidwell) ~O4T ~.,,. > a Part of Lots 34, 35 and 36, Concession 1, Township of Oro-Medonte Spedal Development Oak Ridges Moralna Area Settlement ;, ~,,,,~I (Reterto Schedule 5.3.2 For OetaNs) Scale 1:30,000. :'~ - Greenbelt Niagara Escarpment Land Use Boundary 1 ~ ~ ,~ Greenland ~ µ ' (Refer to Schedule 5.3.1 For Details} ~, v ,; ~ ;~; ~~~ Physiographlc Areas Ag"°~tt~`e' Date: August 07, 2008 Rural ,_ __.._ :_,-~ DWG No. 1Y32$1A12008WUGU3TIPLANNItJG REPORT FiGURESI'REPORTFlGURES,AUG7-08'.dwg ~~,~c~ ~ 6 a ~ x o a = ~ ~ ~ ` 3 0~7 w ~ ~ y O ~ .g R x ~Q,3y~~a~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~. ~ °° W ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ acs ~ ~ ~ ~ 'IrlllI9mB8H ~~~ § ~7V8/LL'L[1~11iflY Rao .uawnncE ecTU~ canctm~o~ s s: ~rrz~ \ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ,/~"~ A ~ r T' ~ / l I l l~l l 1 1 ~' i 4 ' f r~ a i •~ /~ '~ L ~ ~ ~,~., ~ ~ •' - , .• _ r- , r , m C .: ~ \ O i , ~ -J ~' ..~, r' ~ .., ~~ ~ t` r ~~ ~ ~~ 'r _; , f~ ~ ~~ _, r ~~.... _ f ~~ _ r- - - :" ~ ~ !\ ` , / ,~ . `? ~~ ~ ti _____ ~„ ~-- -- ~ ~; ~ ~~ _ r-~- - --_ i } ! - ~/~ ~ __ ~ ; ~' ' ~.. C J '~ `~ ~~ ~ ~ 4 .~...1 -- _. __ _ ~I x~^ l29rt1~[ ql" /~ n/I ~' ON9AlrJ ~i~ ~ 10Jlii9r ~~~ ~` ~ ~ I ~ { ~ august 12, zoag ~~_~-~ '~~~;~ ; , , .., ~ 3? ~ ,r ! His Worship, Tarty Guergis ' ` County Warden ~ ~i ~ :~~ Bill )i1" a , , ,, ~ , ~ County of Simcoe , , administration Centre 1110 Highway 26 Midhurst, O~N LOL 1 XO 13 Pon,« s~reet Barrie, nntaxio 1.44{ 316 Your Worship: T: (705) 728.6045 E: (705) 728.2010 www.n,nbcp-an.com Re: Proposed Official Plan County of Simcoe ,July 2008 L~rlimt I'nrk Associat~an -~„ -~,,~I;,~-,a„gb~~,,, SugnrG~~s/r Si~Grfivision, Courrty R~arl22, Oro-M~~lo-tte NIn, FcI~ aPP Bernard -~. -Icrt„~~„ We have had the opportunity to review the draft new Courrty of Simcoe Official BES, fvlc-~; R-'I' Plan On behalf of our client, the Indian Park Association, we offerthe following hani ~, -,,-;rt,,,, comments on the plan. A Wrap of our Client's lands is attached. for your BES,;`ac-t; RPP reference. W. Brent Clarkson M~1, M1GlP RYh I3aCICQrO1111CI lames 6). Parkin Brs,1vICIP, RPP The subdivision is located in an identified Settlement Area and is designated "I2.esidentiaP' in the Township Official Plan. Similarly, the County's mapping Co-3rol -,~. ~~;~-~~ BES also identifies the area. as a Settlement Area. This property is subject to various development applications which are permitted under the existing County Plan ~r~; ~~~~,,;« BES, A-1CIY RPP ~nCI th@ IOCdI plan. [7avid rl. ;vicKa~~ BP.S, blC-P ItPP COUllty PAlrc~e5 Br is n A.I_e man BES, ~ICIP ItPP The draft County Plan has designated the lands ``Greenland". It is requested that the entire site be designated "Settlement Area". ot~-l~e5 ~,,: • ~~r~hener General Development Policies • Vaityhan • London • Kingston Section 3.3.8-requires that a local municipality slralC require applicants for a 'Bar"~ plan of subdivision to eirter into a~1 agreement which includes, but is not limited city, r~,vn and Rnrui P-ann~ng to "... dedication of land or cash ir1 lieu far public purposes where appropriate,,' (emphasis is ours). The Plaluling Act permits a municipality to take cash or land Municipal Plansand Studies though a development application in very specific limited circumstances. It is Lana i~eVelap~» ent requested that this be amended to a disoretionary circumstance and that purposes be amended to parrs. Urban I)csign l Community Planning ~andscnpe Ardluecture Natura{ Resource .md Aggregate Planning Expert Evidence alid ~~Cdlat1071 ~ Project hlanagenient Section 3.3.14 - requires a Stormwater Management Report {SWM) Report shalt be prepared for plans of condominium and subdivision of more than 5 lots and that they be prepared in accordance with various manuals including the "Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Developing Areas {1994)". It is requested that the language change to "where required" as it is our opinion that this guideline would not be required in every SWIvt Report circumstance. Section 3.4.b--this section states; "Development within land use designations, draft subdivision approvals, site plans, a~~d other development approvals complying with local official plans approved prior to the approval of this Plan may proceed and does not require an amendment to this Plan.,' We agree with this policy however, there are numerous policies throughout the Plan which would contradict this policy and these will be discussed herein including policies related to the designation of lands in the `°Greenlands" designation including policy 4.10.8 and 4.11,1 which require, in effect, Local C7P conformity to protect the Greenland designation and Local plan amendments to bring the local documents into conformity with the County Policies and snapping, Sett) ements Section 3.5.5 ~ states that Settlements shall be developed as complete communities however, Section 3.5.7 states that Tertiary settlements are not considered complete communities. It is suggested that policy 3.5.5 be clarified to include the Tertiary settlement language. Greenlands These polices seek to "conserve" and improve the "distribution" of the natural heritage of the County (Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.3). It is questioned whether it is a role of the County to improve the distribution of woodlands and wetland cover through OP policy. Conserve is not defined however it implies "preserve". The PPS does permit some development and site alteration in the natural heritage areas contemplated by the County under certain circumstances. It is requested that the wording thus be consistent with the PPS, Section 3,8.7 -- states that "...the Greenlands Designation hzfr~rr~ts decision-making on where growth and settlement occur in tl~e County". It is questioned what this means and how is this to be interpreted? If the intention is that the County Greenland designation takes precedence over the County's settlement policies, this is problematic as the heritage features in the Greenlands designation are not necessarily sigrrificnr~t features as identified by the PPS and read in their totality, the Greenlands designation even applies to areas with no features but may be an oppas-tunity for linkages between features, and would preclude development which has acceptable impacts, for example. Section 3.8.8 -- an objective of the Greenland policies is to provide opportunity to "...enhance the sense of place and quality of life...". This is difficult to measure and quantify and could be very subjective. ~. _~. t Section 3.8.E - in effect states that all natural features in the County, regardless of its significance, or regardless if it is demonstrated that there is no negative impact (the test in the PPS for most significant natural features) will be ~rvtecferl. If this is the intent of tl~e policy, it is recommended that it be reworded, and if it is not tl~e intent, it should be reworded to clearly reflect the intention of the County respecting is natural heritage sysfen7s. Section 3.8.1 ~ _ outlines the features that are included in the Greenland designation. The policies state that the features are not limited to the included list. These uses include some of the features protected under the PPS but also include frll valleylands south of the Canadian Shield, wetlands 0.5 hectares, or larger, in area, ail ANSI's and linkage areas (undefined). The definition for significant woodlot has a lower test for woodlots in settlement areas than outside wherein it is a policy of the Province to promote development in settlement areas, Similarly, significant wildlife habitat would preclude most forms of development even with an EIS. The Cor~nty definition for significant wildlife habitat is over and above the Province's definition. The rationale for including these features in the Greenlands designation is not known nor is it know why these are the benchmarks foe inclusion. Although "wetlands" is to be a defined term in the Plan, and it is important to understand the policy context through the definition, we could not find this word in the definition section of the plan. Section 3.8.12 -states that Local OP's will identify and protect landscape features with sigrrifrcnt~t landscape el~araerer that complement and support the Greenlands andlor are valued as locally significant. Landscape character is not defined, nor does the PPS use this language. This policy is subject to wide ranging interpretation and places a large burden an Local Municipalities. It is recommended that it be removed. Section 3.8.14 -speaks to if the Provincial Plans are more restrictive, they will prevail but it also goes onto state that provisions of the County plan which implement the Provincial plans also prevail; this is confusing. Cultural Heritage Conservation Section 4.6.4 -- reviews the need for archeology assessments. This states that the County shall determine the need for archeology assessments for Official Plan flmendments, Secondary Plans and subdi~risiotis notwithstanding the fact that the County is not the approval authority for subdivisions in Oro-Medonte. The latter should be only where they are the approval authority. Section 4.6.6 -the requirement to provide a copy of an archaeological assessment to the County should only apply when the County has jurisdiction to ask far it; not when the Local Municipality has the jurisdiction such as though a zoning amendment. Infiastrueture Section 4.7.5 -- states that full services are the preferred method of servicing in settlement areas. Conununal services may be developed where "ful l services rrre riot or enrrrtot be ~ravirletP'. 'The PPS states in section 1.6.4.1 that growth is directed to private comtntrnal services where rnunieipal services are riot nvrriCrr6te. The County has set up a different test than the PPS and it should be the PPS that is followed. It should be noted that Section 1.6.4.3 (a} afthe PPS uses the term "not provided" and does not ga so far as stating "cannot be provided". Similarly, the test to require recreational, shoreline, rural business parks and other multi-lot developments to assess the feasibility of providing full or communal services is a higher test than set out by the PPS. Transportation Section 4.8.32 -speaks to design of development under the transportation planning section. This policy provides for design criteria, some of which is transportation related same of which is design related, such as requiring a broad range of housing types, design around a fatal paint or camrnunity civic centre, mix of uses etc. This may be appropriate for secondary plans as the policy states however the policy is also applicable to rlevelo~ta:errt, which is defined, among other matters, a creation of one new Iot. The policy cannot be achieved in a limited development situation. The policy is not discretionary and shanld be reserved for secondary plans. Land LJse Schedules Schedule 5.1 -Land Use Designations -clarification is required as to whether the Settlement policies are for the "pink" area an the schedule ar for the black line around what appears to be the locally approved settlement area boundaries. It is the opinion of this office that the policies should relate to the lands within the settlement area boundaries (the black lines}. Schedule 5.1 -Greenland - we note that portions of the above noted property are designated "Greenland" on this mapping. We are of the opinion that location of the "Greenland" designation on this property is incorrect. As per your staff's suggestion, we are submitting this letter and the attached plan to provide clarification that the lands are currently designated far development. As Hated above, this site is designated far development in the Township of C}ro-Medonte Official Pion as well as the current OP. We would respectfirlly request that the mapping be amended to show entire land holding as "Settlement Area". On behalf of the Indian Park Association we thank yaa far your consideration of these matters. Yours truly, MHBC Planning Kris Menzies, BES, d, MCIP, RPP Partner cc Det~orah Price-Sherman, Indian Park Association Glen Knox, County of Sirncoe Clerk Bryan MacKell, MCIP RPP Director of Planning & Develaprnent, Cou~Ity of Sirncoe Ian Bender, MCIP RF'P Director of Planning, Policies & Special Projects,. County of Sin~eae Andria Leigh, MCIP RPP Director of Develop-nent Services, C)ra-Medonte 4 ~/ Y/ C C C ~ N ~ ~ ~ 8 - ~ _ ~ = L ~ C ~ J o ~ ~ ~ , ~ 'a ~ _ 'C ~ 0 _ _ ~ Q ~ o. ' °~ ~ ° ~ o o ~ m v ^~ ~ 0 ~ '~ '> ~ t a ~ ~ rj ~ N ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~".. v ~ ~ fl ~ Q~ L N1 L. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c Q O ~ ~ ~ v i _ ~F~ ~1= to (A o . Z _ .,. ., .~- - --- 1 '~'"Y. ~,..F;,~ ~ ~ t~~,....~.~.~ .~ar .~ ~e R ~_ ~ ? ~ , ~ a m > b ~~~, ~: Q L d N O 2 'N 9 eUl~ r _._ ,~ ~ . 'N 1 aul~ N 9 aull _~_ G ~~ N ? d x~~~g ~ gee ~ E w ~~~"'~ ~ a ~ i.. w p ~~~ Z ~~~~ .o ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~; ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ v ~. ~ ~ t I ~ ~ ; ;~ f ,:,. ;~ '~~tf~ ., ~. a~.. ~~ ~= ~r~;rat, err .:~j;.~ . "~,,,~,ii,i~~ 13 Poyntz Street Barrie, Ontario Loh{ 3N6 T: ('705) 728.0045 E (705) 728.201A cvw~a~.mhlycptan.com !an ['. hEacNaughto^ MA, FLIP, RPP August ~ ~, ~aog His Worship, Tony Guergis County Warden County of Sitncoe Administration Centre 1110 Highway 26 Midhurst, ON L.OL 1 XO Your Worship: ~ ~ a2. Re: Proposed Official Plan County of Simcoe July 2008 India~~ Park ~ssociatiott Srtgarbrrsk Subdivisio~r, Coar~ty .Road 22, Oro-Merlyftfe Ilernard P. L{cn»~~, We have had the opportunity to review the draft new County of 5irncoe Official ~~s, ^~~~~ «~'i' Plan On behalf of our client, the Indian Park Association, we offer the following Pang R. Br;ao„ comments on the plan. A snap of our Client's lands is attached for your srs, MciP, RPP reference. 11'. 13reni C;larkso^ MA, c~SCt1 RPP ~TCIC~i'Ollnd )amen L?. t<vkin «ts< n~c~Y, RPP The subdivision is located in an identified Settlement Area and is designated "Residential" in the Township Official Plan. Similarly, the County's mapping carbi ~r_ F~;e~,e DES also identifies the area as a Settlement Area. This property is subject to various development applications which are permitted under the existing County Plan ~r~s ~se117~e, BfS, t~tc1P aPP and the local plan. I)av;d A. ~~t~t~:~y 11F..S, h4C:[Y RPP COU11~' PQl1clCS Brian A. 7eman pies, miciP RPP Tho draft County Plan has designated the lands ``Greenland". It is requested that the entire site he designated "Settlement Area". Offices in: K«<t,e"er General Development Policies • Vaughan Landon • Kingsto» Section 3.3.a-requires that a local municipality s/ta/1 require applicants far a ~;ar~ie plan of subdivision to enter info an agreement which inchrdes, but is not limited city,Town and Rnra1 Panning to "... dedication of land or cash in lieu for public purposes where appropriate." (emphasis is ours). The Plaiming Act permits a municipality to take cash or land Muniripal Plans and Studies though a development application in very specif c limited circumstances. It is La~~a Devefofiment requested that this be amended to a discretionary circumstance and that pw~poses be amended to parks. Grban llesign 1 Community Planning Landscape Ardiitecuire Natarai Resource and Aggregate Planning Expert >vvidence and ~]ediation t Project Management Section 3.3.14 - requites a Starm~vater Management Report {SAM) Report shah be prepared for plans of cat~dominiutn and subdivision of mare than 5 Tots and that they be prepared in accordance with various manuals including the "Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Developing Areas {1984)". It is requested that the language change to "where required" as it is our opinion that this guideline would not be required in every SWM Report circumstance. Section 3.4.6 -- this section states: "Development within land use designations, draft subdivision approvals, site plans, at~d other development approvals complying with local official plans approved prior ro the approval of this Plan may proceed ar~d does not require an amendment to this Flan.,' We agree with this policy ha~rever, there are numerous policies throughout the Plan which would contradict this palicy and these wi11 be discussed herein including policies related to the designation of lands in the "Greenlands" designatian including palicy 4.14.8 and 4.1 1.1 which require, in effect, Local t~P conformity to prated the Greenland designatian and Local plan anrendr7lents to bring the local documents into confor-rnity with the County Policies and mapping. Settlements Section 3.5.5 -states that Settlements shall be developed as complete communities however, Section 3.5.7 states that Tertiary settlements are not considered complete communities. It is suggested that policy 3.5.5 be clarified to include the Tertiary settlement language. Greenlands These polices seek to "conserve" and improve the "distribution" of the natural heritage of the Caurt~ty {Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.3). It is questioned whether it is a rate of the County to improve the distribution of woodlands and wetland cover through DP palicy. Conserve is not defined however it implies "preserve". The PPS does permit some development and site alteration in the natural heritage areas contemplated by the Caunty under certain circumstances. It is requested that the warding #hus be consistent with the PPS. Section 3.8.7 -states that "... the Greenlands Designation irtforr~rs decision-making on where growth and settlement occur its the Caunty". It is questioned what this means and how is this to be interpreted? If the intention is that the County Greenland designation takes precedence over the County°s settlement policies, this is problematic as the heritage features in the Greenlands designation are not necessarily srgrrrficnt~t features as identified by the PPS and read in their totality, the Greenlands designatian even applies to areas with na features but may be an opportunity far linkages between feahues, and would preclude development which has acceptable impacts, far example. Section 3.8.8 - an objective of the Greenland policies is to provide opportunity to ".,.enhance the sense of place and quality of life.,.". This is di~culf to measure and quantify and could be very subjective. 2 Section 3.89 - in effect states fihat all natural features in the County, regardless of its significance, or regardless if it is demonstrated t11at there is no negative impact (the test in the PPS for most significant natural features} wi1C b~ prr~tecterl. If this is the intent of the policy, it is recommended that it be reworded, and if it is not tl~e intent, it should be reworded to clearly reflect the intention of the County r-espectitzg is natural heritage systems. Section 3,8.10 - o~rtlines the features that are included in the Greenland designation. The policies state that the features are not limited to tl~e included list. These uses include some of the features protected under the PPS but also include nll valleylands south of the Canadian Shield, wetlands 0.5 hectares, or larger, in area, all ANSI's and linkage areas (undefined). The definition for significant woodlat has a lower test for woodlots in settlement areas than outside wherein it is a policy of the Province to promote development in settlement areas. Similarly, significant wildlife habitat would preclude most forms of development even with arr EIS. The County definition far significant wildlife habitat is over and above the Province's definition. The rationale far ineludir~g these features in the Greenlands designation is not known nor is it know why these are the benchmarks for inclusion. Although "wetlands°' is to be a defined term in the Plan, and it is important to understand the policy context through the definition, we could not find this word in the definition section of the plan. Section 3.8.12 -states that Local OP's rviC/ identify and protect landscape features with sr'guifrc•nr1~` landscape character that complement and support the Greenlands and/or are valued as locally significant. Landscape character is not defined, nor does the PPS use this language. This policy is subject to wide ranging interpretation and places a large burden on Local Municipalities. It is recommended that it be removed. Section 3.8,14 -speaks to if the Provincial Plans are more restrictive, they will prevail but it also goes onto state that provisions of the County plan which implement the Provincial plans also prevail; this is confusing, Cultlu~al 1-lerit~e Conservation Section 4.6.4 -- reviews the used for archeology assessments. This states that the County shall determine the need for archeology assessments for Official Piau flmendments, Secondary Plans and subdivisions notwithstanding the fact that the County is not the approval authority for subdivisions in Oro-Medonte. The latter should be only where they are the approval authority. Section 4.6.6 -the requirer2lent fio provide a copy of an archaeological assessment to the County should only apply when the County has jurisdiction to ask for it; not when the Local Municipality has the jurisdiction such as though a zoning amendment. h~fiastructure Section 4.7.5 -- states that full services are the preferred method of servicing in settlement areas. Communal services may be developed where "full services cr~•e rrbt ot~ crcirnot be ~ravCrlert". The PPS states in section l.~i.4,1 that growth is directed to private communal services where municipal services are ~rQt trvtriC«ble, 'I"lie County has set ul~ a different test than the PPS and it should be the PPS that is followed, It should be noted that Section 1,6.x.3 (a} of the PPS uses the tc;rm "not provided" and does not go so far as stating "cannot be provided". Similarly, the test to require recreational, shoreline, rural business parks and other multi-lot developments to assess the feasibility of providing full or communal services is a higher test than set out by the PPS. "Transportation Section X1.5.32 -speaks to design of development under the transportation planning section. This policy provides for design criteria, some of which is transportation related some of which is design related, such as requiring a broad range of housing types, design around a focal point or comnnmity civic centre, mix of uses etc, This may be appropriate for secondary plans as the policy states however the policy is also applicable to developtare~rt, which is defined, among other matters, a creation of one new Lot. The policy cannot be achieved in a Limited development situation. The policy is not discretionary and should be reserved for secondary plans. Land Use Schedules Schedule 5.1 -Land Use Designations -clarification is required as to whether the Settlement policies are for the "pink" area an the schedule or for the black line around what appears to be the locally approved settlement area boundaries. It is the opinion ofthis office that the policies should relate to the lands within the settlement area boundaries (the black lines. Schedule S. I -Greenland - we note that portions of the above noted property are designated "Greenland" an this mapping. We are of the opinion that location of the "Greenland" designation on this property is incorrect. As per your staff s suggestion, we are submitting this letter and the attached plan to provide clarification that the lands are currently designated for development. As noted above, this site is designated for• development in the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan as well as the current OP. We would respectfully request that the mapping be amended to show entire Land holding as "Settlement Area", On behalf of the Indian Park Association we thank you for your consideration of these matters. Yours truly, MH13C Planning Kris Menzies, BES, d, MCIP, RPP Partner cc Deborah Price-Sherilran, hrdian Park Association Glen Knox, County of Simcoe Clerk Bryan MacKell, MCtP RPP Director of Planning & Development, Cou~~ty of Simcoe Ia~r Bender, MCIP RPP Director of Planning, Policies & Special Projects, Corurty of Simcoe Andria Leigh, MCIP RPP Director of Development Services, ©ro-Medonte ~~~~ ~ N G c m •°- s ~C C = ~ ~ L ~ = ~ ~ a ~ s ~ _ C J o w a _ Ri -~ ~ O. ~t~ ~ ~ N Q ~ o ~ a a ~ N . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / (~ '~ W ~ L ~Q N L ~~ .° ~ ~ w 3 N v °' E z iH~b' N ~ t~~~ Sao ~~ ~ ~ o . z ; ~ , .. - ~ : . ~ t` a ,i ~ ~ k . °, i ~~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ a ~ ..1~., !sA~s~.y~ O L N O 2 'N S aur7 N L aur7 _. ~ N 9 aui~ ~ci m m s m N ~ ^Z ~ E C ~.! s ~ v J C H Q ~ S ~ 0 ~ a ~ ~ ~~~ Q e ~, ` w p ~~~~ U~ ~p,r,~ a~ ~ ~ _ z ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~„~ _~ ~ ~ C O U ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~f s ~~ ~~ ~_~ a; '•. Iii ~i '.~©Il.l: ~~~ ~ s~~ > ~ ~~ 8 i t i ~ a ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ugust 12, 2008 ~ ~ _ ' ~~~~~' ~ ~ i ~ I ~ i ~ ~ ., ~ °` t His Worship, Tony Guergis ~ County Warden r fr:~rrl ii u;i r ~~~hId1~P: ~ ;,.: . • ~ ,< ~ County of Simcoe , ~~,~ ~ ; , ,,,,,,,, '~ Administration Centre ~ 11 I 0 Highway 26 Midhurst, (JN LOL 1 XO 33 poyntz stre~ Barrie, Ontario L9b4 3N6 Your Worship: 'r: (cos) ns.ooas ~: (gas} ~2s.zo3o mvw.mhhcp~an,com Re: Proposed Official Plan County of Simcoe July 2008 HoisesJrve Vnlley Settlerrte~ttAren [an r. ~tacNangh(on TotiUlzslrip of D~~o-ltledonte h4A, FC1I; Rpf' t3ernard Y. Her~nsen B>s, Nic3~, Rpp We have had the oppo3-tunity to review the draft new County of Simcoe Official Plan, On behalf of our clients, the two major land developers of Horseshoe 3yaa,i iz. Britton Brs, n~ciP RPP Valley Settlement Area, Skyline International Development (Skylines and Horseshoe Valley Resort Corporation (Horseshoe), we offer the following w. Brent clarisor, n,~n, Mcar, ~€ep comments on the plan. A map of the Horseshoe Settlement Area is attached for )antes D. Parkin your reference. BES; MCII; RPP Carol hi. ~'iehe Bi1ClC~1'OUfld BE5 _ Horseshoe Valley Resort is designated as a Settlement in both the County ~, >vr~s ~~~ ~~ ~ and the 'T'ownship of Oro-Medonte Official Plan. "fhe site is Official Plan BFS, h1crP RP} . subject to several designations which permit various forms of development; t~ay,d ~.~~~~~~ ~,ci>> RPP ES specifically "Horseshoe Valley -Resort Facility", "Horseshoe Valley -Low B , Density", "HorseshoeValley -Medium Density", "Horseshoe Valley Village°' BYlan A. Zxntan and "Recreational". Skyline and Horseshoe own numerous developed, partially BES, hiaP RPP developed, draft plan approved and land under development or soon. to be under ~afi«<, ~,,: application. Ifitchener • Vaughan COUIIt}' PoIICIeS • Londan Kingston r3arrie The draft (JP designates Horseshoe partially "Settlement Area" and partially "Greenland"; however the boundaries do not follow the constructed, built ar City,'Ibwn and Rnra~ P~anniisg approved lands. We request that the entire settlement area be placed in the n~in„«;~>ai n,~s Ana s«~a,<s "Settlement Area" designation. Lana{ Development Urban Design 1 Cmnmunity Planning Landscape Arthitecmrt Natural Resource and Aggregate Planning Expert Evidence anti Mediation l Project A4anageme+u ~--; Genera} Develo_ptnent Policies Section 3.3.8 -requires that a local municipality shall requure applicants for a plan of subdivision to enter into an agreement -which includes, but is not limited to "... dedication of land ar cash in lieu for public purposes where appropriate." {emphasis is ours). The Planning Act permits a municipality to take cash or land though a development application in very specific limited circumstances, It is requested that this be amended to a discretionary circumstance and that purposes be amended to parks. Section 3.3.14 - requires a Starmwater Management Report {Sti~~M) Report shill be prepared for plans of candamuaium and subdivision. of more than 5 lots and that they be prepared in accordance with various manuals including the "Nish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Developing Areas {I994},'. It is requested that the language change to "where required" as it is our opinion that this guideline would not be required in every SWM Report circumstance. Section 3,3.15 -this requires a traffic study be undertaken, where appropriate, prior to an 4PA being adopted by the local municipality, Although the need far the study is discretionary to the County, if a study is required, for example, due to a subdivision being proposed, the study must be dare at the 4PA stage and not the draft plan stage. It is requested that the language be changed to allow far the study to be undertaken at the draft plan stage or the {SPA stage a# the discretion of t11e County as, it is our opinion, that there are circumstances where undertaking the study at the OPA stage is not appropriate. Section 3.4.G -this section states: "Development within land use designations, draft subdivision approvals, site plans, and other development approvals complying with local official plans approved prior to the approval of this PIan may proceed and does not require an amendment to this Plan." We agree with this policy however, there are numerous policies throughout the Plan which wau}d contradict this policy and these will be discussed herein including policies related to the designation of lands in the "Greenlands" designation including policy 4.14.$ and 4.l 1.1 which require, in effect, Local C?P canfarn~ity to protect the Greenland designation and Local plan amendments to bring tl~e local documents into conformity with the County Policies and mapping. Settlements Section 3.5.5 -states that Settlements shall be developed as complete communities however, Section 3.5.7 states that Tertiary settlements are not considered complete communities. It is suggested that policy 3.5.5 be clarified to include the Tertiary settlement language. Section 3.5.6 -- requires both a County OPA and lava} OPA to adjust settlement area boundaries, It is requested that the language be changed to not require a County ©PA. It is clear thak the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Places to Grow Growth Plan sets out the requirements far amending a settlement boundary. The County and the Local Municipalities are required to be consistent tivith the PPS and conform to Places to Grow. It is the opinion of this office that requiring two parallel {~I't1. I~r~acesses {]oca] and Caiult}~) under the same pa]icy criteria. far expansion does not serve the public we]l, dup]icates process and is superfluous. It is requested that this language be changed to allow the County to fulfill its r•ale as the upper tier municipality and given that the County is the Lora] Municipality approval authority, approval of Se~ttlernent expansions is vested ~~~ith the Caunty in any event. Greenlands These polices seek to "conserve" and improve the "distribution" of the natural heritage of the County {Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.3}. It is questioned whether it is a role of the County to improve the distribution of woodlands and wetland cover through OP policy. Conserve is not defiled however it implies "preserve". The PPS does permit same develohtnent and site alteration in the natural heritage areas contemplated by the County under certain circumstances. It is requested that the warding thus be consistent with the PPS. Section 3.8.7 -states that ".., the Greenlands Designation irrf©t~~~~s decision-making on where growth and settlement occur in the Caunty". It is questioned what this means and how is this to be interpreted If the intet~tian is that the County Greenland designation takes precedence aver the County's settlement policies, this is prabletx~atic as the heritage features in the Greenlands designation are not necessarily sig~~ifierurt features as identified by the PPS and read in their totality, the Greenlands designation even applies to areas with no features but may be an opportunity for linkages between features, and would prechtde development which has acceptable impacts, far example. Section 3.8.8 an objective of the Greenland policies is to provide opportunity to "...enhance the sense of place and quality of life...". This is difficult to measure and quantify and could be very subjective. Section 3,$,9 - in effect states that all trahrral features in the County, regardless of its significance, or regardless if it is demonstrated that there is na negative impact (the test in the PPS far mast significant natural features) ii~i11 be ~r©tecterl. If this is the intent of the policy, it is recat~~tnended that it be reworded, and if it is not the intent, it should be reworded to clearly reflect the intention of the County respecting is natural heritage systems. Section 3.8.10 ---outlines the features that are ine]uded in the Greenland designation. The policies state that the features are not limited to the included list. These uses include some of the features protected under the PPS but also include rrll valleylands south of the Canadian Shield, wetlands O.S hectares, or larger, in area, all t~NSI's and linkage areas (undefined}. The definition for significant woodlat has a lower test for waodlots in settlement areas than outside wherein it is a paliey of the Province to promote deve]aprnent in settlement areas. Similarly, significant wildlife habitat would preclude most farms of development even with an 1IS. The Caunty definition far significant wildlife habitat is over and above the Province's definition. The rationale far including these features in the Greenlands designation is not knaum i~ar is it know why these are the benchtl~arks for inclusion. ~~ flltl~augh "wetlands" is to be a defined term in the Plan, and it is important to understand the policy context through the definition, we could not find this ward in the de~nitian section of the plan. Section 3.8.12 -states that Local OP's will identify and protect landscape features with si~rrifrcrrlrl landscape character that comple-nent and support the Greenlands andJar are valued as locally signihcatlt, Landscape character is not defined, nor does the PPS use this language. This policy is subject to wide ranging interpretation and places a large burden on Local Municipalities. It is recommended that it be removed. Section 3.$.14 -speaks to if the Provincial Plans are mare restrictive, they will prevail but it also goes onto state that provisions of the County pla-~ which implement the Provincial plans also prevail; this is confusing. Section 3.$.17 -this section states that golf courses are not permitted in the Greenlands designation. Numerous of the existing golf course holes at Horseshoe Resort appear to be designated tree-lland. It is requested that this be amended to recognize the existing use. Shoreline Section 3.12 -states that the Shoreline Overlay Designation may appl}r up to 2 km fi-am the shoreline depending on "hronlulent topography and man made features, the depth of existing development oriented to the shoreline and the presence of natural features". It is submitted that this is excessive and does not provide appropriate guidance as to where it app]ies. Cultural Heritago Conservation Section 4.6.4 -reviews the need for archeology assessments. This states that the County shall determine the need far archeology assessments far Official Plan Amendments, Secondary Plans and subdivisions notwithstanding the fact that the County is not the approval authority far subdivisions in Oro-Medonte. The latter should be only where they are t]re approval authority. Section 4.6.6 -the requirement to provide a copy of an archaeo]agical assessment to the County should on]y app]y when the County has jurisdiction to ask for it; not when the Laeal Municipality has the jurisdiction such as though a zoning amendment. Infrastructure Section 4.7.5 -states that full services are the preferred method of servicing in settlement areas. Commlmal services may be developed where "full services crr~ rtr~t or ecr~r~rot be provirl~rP'. The PPS states in section 1.6.4, I that growth is directed to private communal services where municipal services are neat avrcilrrble. The County has set up a different test than the PPS and it should be the PPS that is followed. It should be noted that Section 1.6,4.3 (a) of the PPS uses the term `°not provided" and does not ga sa far as stating "catulot be provided". Similarly, the test to require recreational, shoreline, Tura] business barks and other multi-lat developments to assess the feasibility of providing full ar communal services is a higher test than set out by the PPS, 4 Transportation Section 4.5.32 -speaks to design of development under the transportation planning section. This policy provides far design criteria, same of ~~jhich is transportation related some of which is design related, such as requiring a broad range of housing types, design around a fatal point or community civic centre, mix of uses etc. This may be appropriate for secondary plans as the policy states however the policy is also applicable to ~levelopntent, which is defined, among other matters, a creation of one new lot. The policy cannot be achieved in a limited development situation. The policy is not discretionazy and should be reserved for secondary plans. Land Use Schedules Schedule S, I -Land Use Designations -clarification is required as to whether the Settlement policies ace far the "pink" area an the schedule or far the black line around what appears to be the locally approved settlement area boundaries. It is the opinion of this office that the policies should relate to the lands within the settlement area boundaries {the black lines), Sehedrile 5.1 -Greenland - we note that portions of the Horseshoe Valley Settlement Area ar•e designated "Greenland" on this mapping. We are of the opinion that location the `°Greenland„ designation on this property is incorrect. The mapping does not accurately reflect the designations of the ]oval OP bath in respect to lands designated for future development and lids which ar•e already developed, As per your staff s suggestion, we are submitting this letter and the attached plan to provide clarification that tl~e lands are currently designated for development. As noted above, this site is a settlement area designated far development in the Township of Oro- Medonte Official Plan. We would respectfully request that the mapping be amended to show the entire area as "Settlement Area". Schedule 5.2. I -High Potential Mineral Aggregate Resources - Horseshoe Resort is an approved Settlement Area in the current and draft County Official Plan as well as the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The entire Settlement Area is identified as being a sand and gravel resource. It is on the basis of these Settlement Area approvals; it is requested that the designation in Schedule 5.2.1 be removed an the Horseshoe Resor•k settlement area. On behalf of Skyline International Developments and Horseshoe Valley Resort Corporation eve thank you for your consideration of these matters. Yours truly, MHBC Pla~ming ~~ Kris Menzies, BES, BE , MCIP, RPP Partner cc Pa~-1 l'Va-•d, Skyline international Deveupment Inc Richard Andrews, I-lorseshoe Valley Resort Co-•poration 119&677 Ontario Limited Glen Knox, County of Simcoe Clerk Bryan MacKell, MCIP RPP Director afPlanning & Development, County of Simcoe Ian Bender, MCIP RPP Director of Punning, Policies & Special Projects, County of Simcoe Anclria Leigh, MCIP RPP Director of Development Services, Gro-Medoute 6 N ~ N p ~ Q c s ~ a ~ tCf = ~ O ~ ~ ~ y A c ~ ~ tQ ~ Oiv ~ ~' m ~ z C')~~ z> o ~ ~ -~ ~ ~~ ~' w~+ C m m R d ~ ~ m O O ~ O. ~ v C Q s~2 H r P Z ~~~~Y ~ ~~~4~ ~ ~~~a Q ~ ~~~ $~~~a ~ ~ L~ a r ro 'o m ~ m ~ ~ m ¢ O A K $ D K ~ ~ 3 E ii O _ rfi m ~ ~ ~ d > > > > ~ g ~ g s" ~' "m ~ ~ ~ e a z $ ,_ i m ~' J ~,.~,F ~ ~ . 4 '. ~ ~ ti - j '7 ~i~7ii'1f ~n ° yaa%; i ''F~IifiUil': August 12, 2008 His Worship, Tony Guergis County Warden County of Simcoe Administration Centre 111.0 Highway 26 Midhurst, ON LOL 1 XO -, `S ~ 34 Your Worship: l3 Poyniz Street 13acr;e, Ontario tarn 3~.r6 Re: Proposed Official Plan County of Simcoe July 2008 Mass Devetapme~~ts, z: ~~os> ns.o~as Lot 11, Concession 2, Fore:er Taivnslrip of Oro Township of i0r©- F: (~QS) 728.ZD10 www,mhlxPlun.coni Me(lOnte tun I;biacNaughton pan, l~ci~; KPP We have had the opportunity to review the draft new Calulty of Simcoe Official llenrard r.1{~«„~e„ Plan On behalf of our client, Moss Developments, we have reviewed the mapping QES, hacrP, aP[~ in the new draft County Official flan. We note that the above noted. property is Pa„i~~,~C11141 designated "Agricultural" on this mapping. f1Ii5, M(~IP, lip!' ~~,, urn„< caa~k5~,n The site is designated "Rural Residential" in the `I"ownship of Oro-Medonte's ran, MciP, xP{~ Official Plan,. which permits residential development. The site is subject to an ~ i approved Draft Plan of Subdivision (43-OM-91050). The current County Official ~111f, r _ Pa~~ n l3FS, n~raP, uPP Plan designates the Lands AgriculturalJRural and Greenland, which permit the development of coul~try subdivisions, The subdivision agreement will be before the Carol ~. wiet,e aES Township Council for execution on August 13, 2008. x.; nle,,ie. 13ES.~4~1c~PIZPP The property is proposed to be designated "Agrieulhlral" in the draft OP which 17a,id n. ~~~xar does not permit residential development. We are relying on Section 3.4.6 for our Nr , n1clP RPP interpretation that the development. can proceed and we respectfully request lirl.,~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ confirmation from the County on this issue. If this section cannot be relied on, we 1~ES, MCIP xPr object to the "Agricultural" designation and request a designation that will permit the develapment to proceed oll~~ts .n: • Kitr6cner YoUr6 truly, •vanghan MHBC Planning • f.ondorr • Kingst~~n • [3arrie /~~ ~~ ~~''} C,ity,Town and Rural Planning (( //YYII ~~ ' / ~~InniciPalPians and Studies KrIS ~8n~1eS, MCIP, RPP Lund DcveloP~nent Partner litban 1.7esignl Community Planning G.C. ROy Murad, MOSS Developments Glen Kuox, County of Simcoe Clcrk L~nd~taPe Ar~hue~ture Bryan MacKell, MCIP RPP Directar of Planning & Development, Si~Yieoe County Ia» Bender, MCIP RPP Director of Planning, Policies & Special Projects, Simcoe Natm~al Resource and Aggregate Planning COllllty tlndria Leigh, MCIP RPP Director of Development Services Et-Pert Evidence and Mediation Peoject Alanagemeut ~dr,iirr! ~irr, sar i~ '6~t~riln_ ~;~:~ ,,~, :~, r~~,,,,r r;f= ~~ Poynt~ Street Barrie, Ontario L9M 3N6 T: (705) 728A0~]5 F: (705) 72.2010 ~vw.nrTtbcplattcom lair k'. ittacNaughton ~~tA, PCI1; RPP Bernen~d ['. -l~rntsci~ C3ES, biCIC? RPP Ea;t,~ li. i3~~t~o» sES, itr.,tP, RPP t4~: Brent Garkswt MA, b1CIE; RPP {ameti 1>. Parki~r ~srs, hua~ RPP carol R~1. A~1'icbe nrs Kr;s ;<tenzies ~>s, tviClPRPP nat~id ~a. naeK~,y 13P.S, MCIP KNP Brian r1. Zeman Brs, iv1C]P arP Ctfiices in: • Kitchener vitttghan hondnn • Kingstnu • «arrie ckq, Tos~~n and Rural Planning Municipa) Plans andSfudies Land 17evelopittent Urban Design / C:atttntunit}~ Planning l.audscape Arrhiteaure Natural Rcscturce and Aggregate Planning Expert E~~idence and Mlediatio^ Project Ivlauagzntent August I ~, zoas His Worship, Tony Guergis County Warden County of Simcoe Administration Centre l I IO Highway 2b Midhurst, ON LOL i XO Four Worship: ~~.-~~ Re: Pt~ohosed Official Plan County of 5imcoe July 2008 Orillia n-xl District Veteri--ary Services, 3808 Li--e 11 Narth, Tow--ship of Oro-Medo--te, County of SII`Y-COC We have had the opportunity to review the draft new County of Simcoe Of~eial Plan on behalf of our client, Orillia and District Veterinary Services, and we offer the following comment. Our Client has an application for an Official Plan Amendment before the Ontario Municipal Board to permit a consent on the lands, The. matter is currently being reviewed by the County. We request that any amendment to the Draft County Official Plan not preclude development as proposed before tl~e Board. On behalf of the Orillia and District Veterinary Clinic we thank you for yolu' GO1lSldC;ratlC)ll Of thlS flutter. Yours truly, MHBC Planning C /~~ t~' V l ~ Y l' ~ ' " ' 1 Kris Menzies, BES, BEd, MCIP, RPP Partner cc Orillia & District Veterinary Services, c/a Ian & Lori Webb Bryan MacKell, MCIP RFP Director of Planning & Development, Caunty of Simcoe Ian Bender, MCIP RPP Director of Planning, Policies & Special Projects, County of Simaae Andria Leigh, MCIP RPP, Director of Develaptl~ent Service, Oro- Medollte '~` ~~_~* ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~'~. }~ ~~~~ ~ ~ .August 7, 200$ ~C~ Clearview Planning Coalition Inc TD CEsntre -Royal Trust Tower Suite 41Q5 77 King Street West PO box 58 Toronto QN M5K IE7 ~ 416 777 1325 P 416 7771329 F County of Simcoe Glen Knox, Clerk by e-mail The proposed County of Simcoe Official Plan does not yet represent good community planning and is premature. It may arrogate planning authority over land use where the Niagara Escarpment Plan has primacy. It fails to plan as required by the Province's Growth Plan. Instead, it allocates growth far Sarrie, Orillia and First Nations without authority, even though the Province has yet to determine the final apportionment of an unallocated 40,000 people and 13,000 jobs. It contains no land budget to support its population and growth allocations that considers, inter aiia, the existing supply of designated lands, the capacity of that supply to accommodate projected growth considering intensification opportunities and densities consistent with the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. Even though there is an existing oversupply of designated employment and residential lands, it has na requirement far local municipalities to bring their Official Plan land use designations into conformity with the population and employment targets in the Growth Plan. It provides lower intensification and density targets than the Growth Plan requires without providing any appropriate justification for such targets. There are no linkages between the provision of public services, such as water and wastewater infrastructure and the planning for growth in an environmentally sustainable manner. Urban Sprawl makes people sick and shortens their lives. This Official Plan is the Simcoe County chapter in urban sprawl. The Province long ago initiated a comprehensive set of amendments to many laws to put an end to it in order to make Ontario a safer and healthier place to live far all. It is time for Simcoe County and its local municipalities to get an board. Modify the OP to cure these defects before Council decides. Please. Yours truly, Clearview Planning Coalition [nc Per .art Mcllwain President ~; ? , . ~ 1 1 { , ec, 4~~arden Tonv Guerais and Members of Council