Loading...
02 09 2011 Council Agenda0 TnwnsIiip Proud Heritage, Excitia2 Future THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011 3:00 p.m. - Open Session - Item 10a) 6:00 p.m. - Closed Session 7:00 p.m. - Open Session Page 1. CALL TO ORDER - PRIVATE PRAYER /MOMENT OF REFLECTION: 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda. 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST: 4. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: a) Motion to go in Closed Session. b) Motion to Rise and Report. c) Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services re: Litigation affecting the municipality (Concession 2, Part of Block A (Oro)). d) Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services /Clerk re: Solicitor - client privilege (Shanty Bay Boathouse). e) Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Personal matters about an identifiable individual (Staffing Update). 5. IDENTIFICATION FROM THE PUBLIC OF AN AGENDA ITEM OF INTEREST: 6. MINUTES OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEES: 5 -18 a) Minutes of Council meeting held on February 2, 2011. 7. RECOGNITION OF ACHIEVEMENTS: None. 8. PUBLIC MEETINGS: None. 9. DEPUTATIONS: 19 -47 a) 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwater Township Library Service Contract. 48 -49 b) 7:10 p.m. Simon Kennedy, Lila Osborne re: Moonstone Elementary School. 10. REPORTS OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS: Page 1 of 252 Page Council Meeting Agenda - February 9, 2011. 11. REPORTS OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: 84 -85 a) Mayor H.S. Hughes, correspondence from United Way of Greater Simcoe County re, Annual Award Ceremony and 2010 Campaign Achievement Announcement, Georgian Downs, Thursday, February 17, 2011. 12. CONSENT AGENDA: 86 -87 a) Announcements of Interest to the Public - For Receipt. i) Notice of Public Information Open House No. 1, Public Comments Invited, Township of Tay, Tay Area Water Treatment Plan, Class Environmental Assessment - Schedule C, Thursday, February 10, 2011, 7:00 -9:00 p.m., Township of Tay Office. ii) Oro Station Community Hall Events, February 20 & 21, 2011. 88 -91 b) Minutes of Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Board meeting held on December 10, 2010. Staff Recommendation: Receive. 92 -101 c) Minutes of Barrie Public Library Board meeting held on November 25, 2010. Staff Recommendation: Receive. 102 -106 d) Minutes of Midland Public Library Board meeting held on December 9, 2010. Staff Recommendation: Receive. 107 -119 e) Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority meeting held on December 17, 2010 and highlights of meeting held on January 28, 2011. Staff Recommendation: Receive. Page 2 of 252 10. REPORTS OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS: a) 3:00 p.m. Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer, re: 2011 Budget Deliberations. 50 -58 b) Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services /Clerk re: Accessibility Advisory Committee Structure for 2010 -2014 Term of Council. 59 -62 c) Report No. CS 2011 -03, Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services /Clerk, re: Recreation Technical Support Group Structure for 2010 -2014 Term of Council. d) Report No. DS 2011 -04, Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services re: OMEGA — Review of Mandate and Committee Composition [to be distributed at meeting]. 63 -71 e) Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services re: Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval. 72 -80 f) Report No. CSI 2011 -01, Donna Hewitt, Director of Corporate & Strategic Initiatives re: Corporate Strategic Plan [to be distributed at meeting]. 81 -83 g ) Report No. CSI 2011-02, Donna Hewitt, Director of Corporate & Strategic Initiatives re: Economic Development Update [to be distributed at meeting]. 11. REPORTS OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: 84 -85 a) Mayor H.S. Hughes, correspondence from United Way of Greater Simcoe County re, Annual Award Ceremony and 2010 Campaign Achievement Announcement, Georgian Downs, Thursday, February 17, 2011. 12. CONSENT AGENDA: 86 -87 a) Announcements of Interest to the Public - For Receipt. i) Notice of Public Information Open House No. 1, Public Comments Invited, Township of Tay, Tay Area Water Treatment Plan, Class Environmental Assessment - Schedule C, Thursday, February 10, 2011, 7:00 -9:00 p.m., Township of Tay Office. ii) Oro Station Community Hall Events, February 20 & 21, 2011. 88 -91 b) Minutes of Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Board meeting held on December 10, 2010. Staff Recommendation: Receive. 92 -101 c) Minutes of Barrie Public Library Board meeting held on November 25, 2010. Staff Recommendation: Receive. 102 -106 d) Minutes of Midland Public Library Board meeting held on December 9, 2010. Staff Recommendation: Receive. 107 -119 e) Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority meeting held on December 17, 2010 and highlights of meeting held on January 28, 2011. Staff Recommendation: Receive. Page 2 of 252 Page Council Meeting Agenda - February 9, 2011. 12. CONSENT AGENDA: 120 -122 f) Correspondence dated January 25, 2011 from Denton Byers, Senior Project Manager, McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd., re: Detail Design for the Rehabilitation of Highway 400 from Simcoe Road 19 to North Junction of Hwy 12 / Simcoe Road 16 Northbound & Southbound. Staff Recommendation: Receive. 123 -232 g ) Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, correspondence dated: 1. January 28, 2011 from County of Simcoe 2. January 31, 2011 from Township of Springwater, 3. January 27, 2011 from Town of New Tecumseth, 4. January 31, 2011 from Town of Innisfil, 5. January 28, 2011 from Town of Collingwood, 6. January 28, 2011 from Clearview Township. 7. January 24, 2011 from Township of Essa, 8. January 27, 2011 from Township of Severn, 9. January 26, 2011 from Township of Adjala - Tosorontio, 10. December 16, 2010 from Township of Tay, 11. January 26, 2011 from Lake Simcoe Regional Airport, 12. January 28, 2011 from Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 13. January 31, 2011 from Morgan Planning & Development Inc., 14. January 31, 2011 from Davies Howe Partners LLP., 15. January 31, 2011 from Ontario Professional Planners Institute. Staff Recommendation: Receive. 233 -236 h) Correspondence received February 3, 2011 from Bernard Pope re: Presentation to Pre - Budget Consultation for Garfield Dunlop, February 2 and 3, 2011. Staff Recommendation: Receive. 13. COMMUNICATIONS: 237 a) Correspondence dated January 31, 2011 from The Rev. Janet Read - Hockin, St. Thomas Anglican Church re: Request to Waive Building Permit Fee. 238 b) Correspondence dated January 24, 2011 from Town of Collingwood re: NVCA Draft 2011 Budget Notice. 239 -245 c) Correspondence received January 31, 3011 re: Summary of Proposed Copeland Forest Inventory and Stewardship Project. 246 -249 d) Correspondence from Dale Moore, Fire Protection Advisor - Southwest Region, Office of the Fire Marshal, re: Essentials of Municipal Fire Protection for Municipal Decision Makers at Township of Springwater, March 10, 2011. 14. NOTICE OF MOTIONS: None. Page 3 of 252 Page Council Meeting Agenda - February 9, 2011. 15. BY -LAWS: 250 a) By -Law No. 2011 -025 A By -Law to Amend By -Law, 2010 -093, "A By -law of The Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte to Provide for the Imposition of Fees or Charges" (Fees and Charges By -law). 251 b) By -Law No. 2011 -029 A By -law to Continue a Citizen /Senior of the Year Advisory Group for the Township of Oro - Medonte and repeal By -Law No. 2010 -042. 16. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC CLARIFYING AN AGENDA ITEM: 17. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (UNFINISHED ITEMS): 18. CONFIRMATION BY -LAW: 252 a) By -Law No. 2011 -024 Being a By -Law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting held on Wednesday, February 9, 2011. 19. ADJOURNMENT: a) Motion to Adjourn. Page 4 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Touaulr;po� Council Chambers Prosad Heritage, Exciting 1 ulwi. Wednesday, February 2, 2011 TIME: 9:02 a.m. 2010 - 2014 COUNCIL Present: Mayor H.S. Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Councillor Mel Coutanche Councillor Kelly Meyer Councillor Marty Lanr �r Councillor John Crawi'c Councillor Dwight Evans Staff Present: Robin Dunn, f Administra.'lve Officer; Paul Gravelle, Director of Finance /Treat.. - e..?eputy CAO; Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services /Clerk; dria Leigh, Director of Development Services; Shawn Binns, Dir: for of Recreation and Community Services; Donna Hewitt, Dire :tor of Corporate Strategic Initiatives; Tamara Obee, Manager, Health & Safety, Human Resources. Also Present: John and Julie Boville, Bob and Joan Shatilla, Peter and Heide Smith, Sandy Agnew, Sara Ross (Packet & Times), Michael Mills, Gord Roehner, Hal Hunter, Sam Raseta, Kirk Sharpley, Craig Drury, Sara McEwen, Tom Kurtz, Kerry Judges, Andrea Ronan, Gary Green, Howard Leake, Tom Fendley, Ann Truyens, Ann Budge, Val Thornton, John Thornton, Mac Shiells. 1. CALL TO ORDER - PRIVATE PRAYER /MOMENT OF REFLECTION: Mayor H.S. Hughes assumed the Chair and called the meeting to order followed by a private prayer /moment of reflection. Page 1 of 14 Page 5 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: a) Motion to Adopt the Agenda. Motion No. C110202 -1 Moved by Lancaster, Seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the agenda for the Council meeting of Wednesday, February 2, 2011 be received and adopted as amended to add: 4e) Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Personal matters about an identifiable individual (Health & Safety). 10e) Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, re: Committee of Adjustment Site Inspections. Carried 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST: Councillor Coutanche declared a pecuniary interest on Item 4c), Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Acquisition /disposition of land (Pine Ridge) as he has immediate family as members of Pine Ridge. Councillor Coutanche left the table and did not participate or vote on the matter. 4. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: a) Motion to go In Closed Session. Motion No. C110202 -2 Moved by Coutanche, Seconded by Meyer Be it resolved that we do now go in Closed Session at 9:04 a.m. to discuss • acquisition /disposition of land; and • personal matter affecting an identifiable individual. Carried. b) Motion to Rise and Report. Motion No. C110202 -3 Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Lancaster Be it resolved that we do now Rise at 10:14 a.m. and Report on the Closed Session Item 4c) Robin Dunn, CAO, re: Acquisition /disposition of land (Pine Ridge), and that Closed Session Items 4d) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services, re: Acquisition /disposition of land (Municipal Parkland) and 4e) Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Personal matters about an identifiable individual (Health & Safety) be brought forward to Item 17 Closed Session Items (Unfinished Items). Carried. Page 2 of 14 Page 6 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 c) Robin Dunn, CAO, re: Acquisition /disposition of land (Pine Ridge). Councillor Coutanche declared a pecuniary interest on Item 4c), Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Acquisition /disposition of land (Pine Ridge) as he has immediate family as members of Pine Ridge. Councillor Coutanche left the table and did not participate or vote on the matter. The following staff were present: Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer; Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services /Clerk; Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services; Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services; Donna Hewitt; Director of Corporate and Strategic Initiatives; Tamara Obee, Manager, Health & Safety, Human Resources. Motion No. C110202 -4 Moved by Evans, Seconded by Crawford Be it resolved 1. That the confidential PowerPoint presented by Robin Dunn, CAO, re: Acquisition /disposition of land (Pine Ridge) be received. 2. That the Township of Oro- Medonte facilitates partnerships to purchase Pine Ridge by the Arts, Minds, Body & Spirit Group. 3. And that the Township meets with the Arts, Minds, Body & Spirit Group to present the parameters, established by Council, in which the Township will facilitate partnerships. Carried. Recorded Vote Requested by Councillor Lancaster Councillor Lancaster Yea Councillor Crawford Yea Councillor Evans Yea Deputy Mayor Hough Yea Councillor Meyer Yea Mayor H.S. Hughes Yea Councillor Coutanche Declared a Pecuniary Interest Page 3of14 Page 7 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 d) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services, re Acquisition /disposition of land (Municipal Parkland). The following staff were present: Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer; Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services /Clerk; Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services; Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services; Paul Gravelle, Director of Finance /Treasurer /Deputy CAO. Motion No. C110202 -5 Moved by Meyer, Seconded by Coutanche Be it resolved 1. That Confidential Report No. RC2011 -05, Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services, re: Acquisition /disposition of land (Municipal Parkland) be received. 2. And That staff proceed as directed by Council. Carried. e) Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Personal matters about an identifiable individual (Health & Safety). The following staff were present: Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer; Doug Irwin, Director of Corporate Services /Clerk; Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services; Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services; Paul Gravelle, Director of Finance /Treasurer /Deputy CAO; Tamara Obee, Manager, Health & Safety, Human Resources. Motion No. C110202 -6 Moved by Evans, Seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the confidential correspondence dated February 1, 2011 and presented by Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Personal matters about an identifiable individual (Health & Safety) be received. Carried. 5. IDENTIFICATION FROM THE PUBLIC OF AN AGENDA ITEM OF INTEREST: Page 4 of 14 Page 8 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 6. MINUTES OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEES: a) Minutes of Council meeting held on January 26, 2011. Motion No. C110202 -7 Moved by Coutanche, Seconded by Meyer Be it resolved that the minutes of the Council meeting held on Wednesday, January 26, 2011, be adopted as printed and circulated. Carried. 7. RECOGNITION OF ACHIEVEMENTS: None. 8. PUBLIC MEETINGS: None. 9. DEPUTATIONS: a) Christie Cadotte, RVH, Barrie Area Physician Recruitment, re: 2011 Funding Request [from January 12, 2011 meeting]. Correspondence was distributed to Council and Staff. Motion No. C110202 -8 Moved by Evans, Seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the presentation and correspondence dated February 2, 2011 provided by RVH, Barrie Area Physician Recruitment be received and referred to the 2011 Budget Deliberations. Carried. Page 5 of 14 Page 9 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 10. REPORTS OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS: a) A /Staff Sergeant Rick Rusticus, Acting Detachment Commander, Barrie Detachment, Ontario Provincial Police, re: Statistics. Correspondence was distributed to Council and Staff. Motion No. C110202 -9 Moved by Meyer, Seconded by Coutanche Be it resolved that the verbal information presented by A/Staff Sergeant Rick Rusticus, Acting Detachment Commander, Barrie Detachment, Ontario Provincial Police, re: Statistics be received. Carried. Page 6of14 Page 10 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 b) Jerry Ball, Director of Transportation and Environmental Services, re: 2011 Transportation Construction Projects and 2011 Transportation Paving Projects. Motion No. C110202 -10 Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Evans Be it resolved that the following roads be identified as the 2011 Transportation Construction Projects: Bridge Engineering Cassel Road - Line 2 North to boundary Lakeshore Road - Shoreline Drive to along the shore of the Lake Line 6 North Deviation Line 7 North Tapering Line 10 North - Eady Station Road to County Road 19 Line 10 North - Mount St. Louis Road to Warminster Sideroad Line 12 North - Warminster Sideroad to Mount St. Louis Road Moon Point Drive Parkside Drive Drainage Road Resurfacing. And That the following roads be identified as the 2011 Transportation Paving Projects: Ingram Road - Highway 93 to Line 4 North Ingram Road - Line 6 North to Line 8 North Line 1 South - 5/6 Sideroad to Ridge Road Line 3 North - Mount St. Louis Road South Line 6 North - County Road 19 South to top of the hill Line 7 North - North of County Road 19 Line 8 North - North of Mount St. Louis Line 12 North - South of Horseshoe Valley Road Mount St. Louis Road - Scarlett Line to Line 2 North Old County Road Ukranian Camp. And Further That, should available funds exist, the Director of Transportation and Environmental Services be authorized to proceed with the provisional items being Anderson Line - Highway 12 to Foxmead Sideroad Line 12 North - Bass Lake Sideroad to the water treatment plant Warminster Sideroad - Line 11 Intersection. Carried. Page 7 of 14 Page 11 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 c) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services, re: Event Request - Hawkestone Half Marathon. Motion No. C110202 -11 Moved by Meyer, Seconded by Coutanche Be it resolved 1. That the correspondence dated January 26, 2011, The Bonita Glen CR -3 1/2 Marathon and 10km Road Race - Request for Permission to Host Event and presented by Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services be received. 2. That the applicant work with the Director of Transportation and Environmental Services and the Chief Municipal Law Enforcement Officer with respect to signage and parking. 3. That the applicant provide proof of insurance naming the Township of Oro - Medonte as a third party in the amount of $2,000,000.00. 4. That the applicant provides appropriate notification to local residents and businesses affected. 5. That the applicant works with the Oro - Medonte Chamber of Commerce to promote local businesses and area accommodations. 6. And That applicant be advised of Council's decision under the Director of Recreation and Community Services' signature. Carried. d) Report No. DS2011 -003, Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, re: Preliminary Review of Development Concept Plan (Edgar lands) [to be distributed at the meeting]. Motion No. C110202 -12 Moved by Evans, Seconded by Crawford Be it resolved 1. That Report No. DS2011 -003, Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, re: Preliminary Review of Development Concept Plan (Edgar lands) be received. 2. That Council, in principle, supports the preliminary concept for re- development of the Edgar Lands dated January 7, 2011 prepared by Jones Consulting Ltd. subject to conformity with the Official Plan during the formal application submission. 3. And That the applicant be advised of Council's decision under the Director of Development Services' signature. Carried. Page 8of14 Page 12 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 e) Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, re: Committee of Adjustment Site Inspections. Correspondence was distributed to Council and Staff. Motion No. C110202 -13 Moved by Coutanche, Seconded by Meyer Be it resolved 1. That the verbal information presented by Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, re: Committee of Adjustment Site Inspections be received. 2. That the Committee of Adjustment member who undertake site visits shall do so on their own accord, without remuneration, with the exception of mileage. 3. That the Committee of Adjustment members who wish to undertake a site visit must contact the applicant directly to obtain permission to enter the property at a mutually convenient time. 4. And that the Clerk bring forward the appropriate amendment to the Township's Remuneration By -law. Carried. Motion No. C110202 -14 Moved by Evans, Seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that Rule 3.7 of Procedural By -law 2011 -011 be suspended in order to allow the meeting to proceed past the normal adjournment hour of 1:00 p.m. Carried. 11. REPORTS OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: None. 12. CONSENT AGENDA: a) Announcements of Interest to the Public - None. Page 9 of 14 Page 13 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 13. COMMUNICATIONS: a) Correspondence dated January 17, 2011 from Gary Bell, Skelton Brumwell & Associates Inc., re: Completion of Sound Monitoring Hillway 12th Line Pit, Oro - Medonte. Motion No. C110202 -15 Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Evans Be it resolved that the correspondence dated January 17, 2011 from Gary Bell, Skelton Brumwell & Associates Inc., re: Completion of Sound Monitoring Hillway 12th Line Pit, Oro - Medonte be received and referred to staff for a report. Carried. b) Correspondence dated January 21, 2011, Oro Peewee AE Team, Request for Donation and Township Pins. Motion No. C110202 -16 Moved by Meyer, Seconded by Coutanche Be it resolved 1. That the correspondence dated January 21, 2011 from Mike Howe re: Oro Peewee AE Team, Request for Donation and Township Pins be received. 2. That the Oro Peewee AE Team request for 75 Township pins when representing the area at the European tournament be approved. 3. That any unused pins be returned to the Township. 4. That a $200.00 donation to the Oro Peewee AE Team be approved and funded from the 2011 Grants /Donations allocation. 4. And That the applicant be advised of Council's decision under the Mayor's signature. Carried. Page 10 of 14 Page 14 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 c) Correspondence dated January 26, 2011 from Mike Maynard, Friends of Sugarbush, re: Exemption to By -Law No. 2009 -025, Being a By -law to Establish Regulations with respect to Municipal Parkland, and Municipally Owned Lands used for Recreational Purposes within the Township of Oro - Medonte. Motion No. C110202 -17 Moved by Evans, Seconded by Crawford Be it resolved 1. That the correspondence dated January 26, 2011 from Mike Maynard, Friends of Sugarbush, re: Exemption to By -Law No. 2009 -025, Being a By -law to Establish Regulations with respect to Municipal Parkland, and Municipally Owned Lands used for Recreational Purposes within the Township of Oro - Medonte be received. 2. That an exemption to By -Law No. 2009 -025, Being a By -law to Establish Regulations with respect to Municipal Parkland, and Municipally Owned Lands used for Recreational Purposes within the Township of Oro - Medonte be granted to the Friends of Sugarbush to have a fire on Monday, February 21, 2011 in Sweetwater Park. 3. And that applicant, the Director of Fire & Emergency Services and the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers be advised of Council's decision under the Director of Corporate Services' signature. Carried. d) Correspondence dated January 27, 2011 from Gerry Marshall, Mayor, Town of Penetanguishene, 4th Annual Turkey Slide Politician Challenge, Town of Penetanguishene Winterama. Motion No. C110202 -18 Moved by Coutanche, Seconded by Meyer Be it resolved that 1. The correspondence dated January 27, 2011 from Gerry Marshall, Mayor, Town of Penetanguishene, 4th Annual Turkey Slide Politician Challenge, Town of Penetanguishene Winterama be received. 2. That Councillors Crawford and Meyer on behalf of the Township of Oro - Medonte, and Mayor H.S. Hughes on behalf of the County of Simcoe, accept the challenge to participate in the 4th Annual Turkey Slide Politician Challenge. 3. And Further That Mayor Marshall, Town of Penetanguishene, be advised of the Township of Oro - Medonte's intent to win this exciting event. Carried. Page 11 of 14 Page 15 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 e) Chamber Connections, January 2011 Edition, Orillia Chamber of Commerce, re: Business Achievement Awards and Annual General Meeting, February 24, 2011, Hawk Ridge Golf & Country Club. Motion No. C110202 -19 Moved by Meyer, Seconded by Coutanche Be it resolved 1. That the Chamber Connections, January 2011 Edition, Orillia Chamber of Commerce, re: Business Achievement Awards and Annual General Meeting, February 24, 2011, Hawk Ridge Golf & Country Club be received. 2. That Mayor H.S. Hughes and Councillors Evans and Crawford be authorized to attend the Orillia District Chamber of Commerce, Achievement Awards and Annual General Meeting, February 24, 2011, Hawk Ridge Golf & Country Club. 3. And That the CAO's Office RSVP on behalf of the attendees. Carried. Council recessed at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened at 1 :25 p.m. 14. NOTICE OF MOTIONS: None. 15. BY -LAWS: a) By -Law No. 2011 -023 A By -law to Authorize the Execution of a Memorandum of Understanding between The Township of Oro - Medonte, The County of Simcoe, Participating Communities, The City of Barrie and Barrie Police Service. Motion No. C110202 -20 Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Evans Be it resolved that By -Law No. 2011 -023, a By -law to Authorize the Execution of a Memorandum of Understanding between The Township of Oro - Medonte, The County of Simcoe, Participating Communities, The City of Barrie and Barrie Police Service be read a first, second and third time, passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Mayor. Carried. 16. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC CLARIFYING AN AGENDA ITEM: Page 12 of 14 Page 16 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 17. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (UNFINISHED ITEMS): Closed Session Items 4d) Shawn Binns, Director of Recreation and Community Services, re: Acquisition /disposition of land (Municipal Parkland) and 4e) Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer, re: Personal matters about an identifiable individual (Health & Safety) was brought forward to Item 17 Closed Session Items (Unfinished Items). a) Motion to go In Closed Session Motion No. C110202 -21 Moved by Coutanche, Seconded by Meyer Be it resolved that we do now go in Closed Session at 1:25 p.m. to discuss • acquisition /disposition of land; • personal matter affecting an identifiable individual. Carried. b) Motion to Rise and Report. Motion No. C110202 -22 Moved by Evans, Seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that we do now Rise and Report at 2:40 p.m. Carried. Refer to Items 4 d) and 4e). Page 13 of 14 Page 17 of 252 6a) - Minutes of Council meeting held on F Council Minutes — February 2, 2011 18. CONFIRMATION BY -LAW: a) By -Law No. 2011 -022 Being a By -Law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting held on Wednesday, February 2, 2011. Motion No. C110202 -23 Moved by Meyer, Seconded by Coutanche Be it resolved that By -Law No. 2011 -022, being a by -law to confirm the proceedings of the Council meeting held on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 be read a first, second and third time, passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Mayor. Carried. 19. ADJOURNMENT: a) Motion to Adjourn. Motion No. C110202 -24 Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Evans Be it resolved that we do now adjourn at 2:41 p.m. Carried. Mayor, H.S. Hughes Clerk, J. Douglas Irwin Page 14 of 14 Page 18 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... 01/31/2011 18:06 FAX [a 0001/0001 REQUEST FOR DEPUTATION BEFORE COUNCILICOMMiTTE P—d H -,4g,. E,�+ing F., Any written or electronic submissions and background information for consideration by Councii1committee must be submitted to the Clerk by 4:30 pm on the Wednesday of the week prior to the preferred meeting. Electronic submissions should be submitted in Microsoft PowerPoint /Microsoft Word format Preferred Meeting and Date: I I am requesting deputation to speak: a) r] o� my own behalf; or b) Cron behalf of a group / organization/ association, if b), please state name of group/ organization /association below, -`dco n a I Pa PL) (Ic, Q bra I would like to use: en p ojector L– taptop Kernels) of Speaker(s) A deputation wishing to appear before Council /Committee shall be limited to no more than two (2) speakers with a total speaking time of not more than ten (10) minutes. Subject of Presentation Please describe below, the subject matter of the requested presentation in sufficient detail, to provide the Township a means to determine its content and to assess its relative priority to other requests for presentation. Weight will be given to those requests that provide more detailed descriptions of the content of the presentation, particularly defining how the subject matter aligns with Council's Mandate. Please note, if you intend to include handouts or a presentation using electronic devices, one (1) copy of any electronic presentation and fifteen (15) hard copies of the presentation including any handouts and are to be delivered to the Clerk's Office in accordance with the guidelines for Deputations /Delegations outlined in the Township's Procedural By -law. Reason why this presentation is important to Council and to the municipality: 1 m p r z) � re r access © -`i' d ro - H ryk- Date of Request. Ja" . 3 ,, 0-0 L I Signatures) of Speaker(s) A(1 1 1 pa66�t . v r Address: W e�f — m Q 42 Telephone: Fax: Email Note: Additional material maybe circulated ! presented at the time of the deputation. Scheduling will beat the discretion of the Clerk, and will be confirmed. There are no guarantees that by requesting a certain date(s) your deputation will be accepted, as prior commitments may make it necessary to schedule an alternate date suggested by the Clerk. Personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended. The information is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public pursuant to Section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Clerk's Office. The Corporation of the Township of Oro- Medonte, 148 Line 7 South, BOX 100, Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0, 01/2011 Page 19 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... w _ Page 20 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... x� w Q E1 Page 21 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... Page 22 of 252 w V O 4-D � O �JO � +, O 9 pool 0) 4) +5 $ CO Page 22 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... w� 1 cz c U �- cz c O z POO O O cz cz A—D •� cz OU O 73 O cz cz cz U cz O O � V � � � � � 0 biD � � C� � cz • ^I [� � � � � W w � 0 �I U O �I Page 23 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... t x� a� as i r, Page 24 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... Page 25 of 252 N 'I //�. r 111 J � / . ' 1 1 V ( �'II�M ry y 11J 9' ct v V • � I I I r at. J /.� � ct it T O ct ct ct cq I 7 i V 4-D � 4 z ,® ME= Page 25 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... Page 26 of 252 •� goo � = O goo �V ■ J Page 26 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... WF � O •� -4m;) Page 27 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... W 1 y� cz cz ct biD z �4 ) cz cz cz cz cz cz O cz O O cz . $:i � � o � cz O U cz cz U tw cz U o 0 0 cz p cz cz O +-) U O o .s:1 Q �� � J Page 28 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... Page 29 of 252 W co (1) C� bJD Page 29 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... C7 z� -- i r i M p O V o +� Page 30 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... W H <C C� I zz a ~ r6" .j a. CC N . W O � 4\ 1 O � O � r AN r. Gt .- , woo CC bA CC 4-D C0 � O CC !►� � o a) ct P4 w w Page 31 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... t L. • i _ e r • AM t a� "! ■ � '„ - � _ -- -- _ PAM • f/ fir... • J „ 11 "I r� Page 32 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... W o "Ci U O CID 0) �-- ® "Ci Page 33 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... W • �r C� Zp O Emm Emm r. r o O Er y y v z bjD ® ® v O �•o � O ® A cd Page 34 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... W_. Q �,J zrr�]1 �a cam. O O O O O N O O N I` O O N Cfl O O N Page 35 of 252 O O O O O O O O O O M O M O M O M O M U c t bJD Cc CO a) O ,S� cc a� — 0 CC ct O ct �+ � a� o A-D U r i CC • � CC biD c � M � "O � "O Page 35 of 252 O O O O O O O O O O M O M O M O M O M 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... Page 36 of 252 W � � O s L rM O H N � O c� O cam. 0 O N O 00 O N O V N O s N N 0 N O = O 0 N N L � s � Z � O � O N �O O O O O O O O O 1 1 N O 00 O 1 1 N rM rM rM Page 36 of 252 9a) -7 OO p.m. Lynn Pmk u m :SpHngwm. § m v . � g � \. ; /f � . � k ° \ / 6 _■ cU . . \ } 9 � \ � ■ �� / / � I � ■ .. - 0 CL f '■ ■ k � 2 ■ 0 4) _.. � c 0 c ° \ % � 0 c � U' � . / $ � § � . ■. ` . y / 2 . o � D \ \ § \ \> ^ - a � � \ ƒ c � c & ■. ' = y ® \ � c e 0 � ® k « x , � z [ ■ ■ �� . & 0 � , � ■ / 7 f2 ` § c d ■ ■� �U 20. Page 37 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... W Cq O cc e Ol Di O 0 y U 1;.4 GOD- sOD- 0 U Page 38 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... s � � I � O 0 poo pool 0 poo O Page 39 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... No Page 40 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... 'lot a� ' ° Page 41 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... W cz 1� cz cz ~t r, cr o cz `. cc � o a� 4� cz cz ct c z z O ±i 4-D cz 4� Y) cz �Cz cz cz � a cz cz cz �4 �4 ° Cz cz � a a) o c � cc ® ° cz O ct 1 1 ° C3 - ,� Page 42 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... maim JAW Page 43 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... Page 44 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... LU 190 o�z y, _4) 0 =Z 013 C) III J W W Page 45 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... Page 46 of 252 9a) - 7:00 p.m. Lynn Patkau re: Springwat... Page 47 of 252 0 ANN- N 4-D �wq cc 4-D 00 O O 4-D 4-D a� U U � U � U U � W O W Page 47 of 252 9b) - 7:10 p.m. Simon Kennedy, Lila Osbor... I REQUEST FOR DEPUTATION BEFORE COUNCIUCOMMITTE Prn+rJ fl�ritasv, rianeNg Furu.r Any written or electronic submissions and background information for consideration by Council /Committee must be submitted to the Clerk by 4:30 pm on the Wednesday of the week prior to the preferred meeting. Electronic submissions should be submitted in Microsoft PowerPoint /Microsoft Word format ��a Preferred Meeting and Date: ( ° AEK f Lk� .9-0 I am requesting deputation to speak: ! a) ❑ on my own behalf; or b) a Won behalf of a group/ organi zation /association, if b), please state name of group / /ass / ociatiion below. L / I would like to use: ❑ projector ❑ laptop Name(s) of Speaker(s) A deputation wishing to appear before Council/Committee shall be limited to no more than two (2) speakers with a total speaking time of not more than ten (10) minutes. tf iC Yl Kt1f�tfi�fi �t l0 Subject of Presentation Please describe below, the subject matter of the requested presentation in sufficient detail, to provide the Township a means to Its re aVve pr'oeity to other requests for presentation, Weight will be given to those requests that t ins: orese ^.tation, partir- m!ariy defining how the subject matter aligns with Council's _ ,• ,t c r a pre eniatior using electronic devices, one (1) copy of any electronic -1 - anao.as F-Fc, are to be delivered to the Clerk's Office in l! Fax: Email: ° I 2` as f e ed h +rig;nioii:in ib ccillecttxt Ignrl rRaErlt$n?C r < ° ^.° ^^ . t .� r r, genere, rn.htir nl MTnt to RACYCm 27 M the Mun+nnal FrpQrtnm of Int!Mtmtion land Yroteetion o+ l�rivaGy AU Uuesuons a t this WI;eaor, s ioulo Ue airei'tedi to the ffice Clerk's O, The Corporation of the Township of Oro- Medonte. ine 148 L 7 South, Box 101), Oro, Ontario, LOL 2XO. Page 48 of 252 �tr+ti4J {. ,rrii� ,tii,r� r,�G�,f�• • � •w ail," i. �� i.•iji�Fii�ff }{ifs, 4L •T ,��fF��i�•,!1��G4!• 9b) - 7:10 p.m. Simon Kennedy, Lila Osbor Page 49 of 252 Wednesday, February 9 th 2011 TO: Township of Oro - Medonte Council c/o The Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Oro, Ontario, LOL 2X0 RE: Ontario's Rural Schools and Accommodation Review Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the Public Session of the February 9 th , 2011 Township of Oro - Medonte Council Meeting. The Moonstone Elementary Enhancement Team would like to present the following letter for Council's consideration. The Moonstone Elementary Enhancement Team (MEET) was formed four years ago when Moonstone Elementary School faced closure under an Accommodation Review. As the threat to our school and others continues to exist, we are here today to request your assistance - not just for Moonstone Elementary but for all rural schools in the Township of Oro - Medonte and beyond. While the Moonstone Elementary Enhancement Team awaits the receipt of information in the form of study results demonstrating the reasons for the move to close the facility, we respectfully request this Council pass a resolution demonstrating your collective support for rural schools. Additionally, and with respect, we ask that you circulate a motion asking other local councils to endorse this resolution. We know that this Council supports rural schools as Mayor Hughes clearly relayed at MPP Garfield Dunlop's Pre - Budget Meeting on February 3' , 2011. We now ask that you put that support in writing. We are sure you are aware of the benefits rural schools bring; not just from a "sense of community" perspective but from measurable statistics like Educational Quality and Accountability Office scores. In addition to EQAO scores and demonstrated in awards in academics, athletics, and public speaking; rural schools provide benefits in the quality of education students receive in one -on -one teaching and learning environments. Please help to put an end to the unnecessary stress that small communities — your constituents - are being made to endure by placing your support squarely behind rural schools. As The Moonstone Elementary Enhancement Team is a currently non - funded, community action group, we ask that, as we search for related documentation such as the "site septic certificate ", you waive the $50 fee generally associated with this type of information request from the Township. Moonstone, like many small communities, has been built around its local school and is a very active community in fundraising and in participating in the daily functionality of the school. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Education and the Simcoe County District School Board to accomplish our goals. However, we also require your assistance to demonstrate what truly precious resources rural schools are to the future of the communities they serve. We look forward to working with the Township of Oro - Medonte Council, the Ministry of Education and the Simcoe County District School Board to proactively and cooperatively arrive at a mutually beneficial resolution to this situation. We believe the resolution and motion requested here today will assist in this goal. Sincerely, Simon Kennedy Moonstone Elementary Enhancement Team (M.E_E.T ) Meet committee(a live.ca Page 49 of 252 10b) - Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, ... '1"oia�ns1ai of REPORT W ns Proud Heritage, Exciting Future Report No. CS 2011 -02 To: Council Prepared By: Janette Teeter Meeting Date: February 9, 2011 Subject: Accessibility Advisory Committee Structure for 2010 - 2014 Term of Council Motion # Roll #: R.M.S. File #: RECOMMENDATION(S): Requires Action For Information Only It is recommended that: 1. Report No. CS 2011-02 be received and adopted. 2. That the Oro - Medonte Accessibility Advisory Committee be continued for the 2010- 2014 Term of Council with a composition of one (1) member of Council (Chair), three (3) public members residing within the Township of Oro - Medonte and the Mayor as an ex- officio member. 3. That the appropriate by -law be brought forward for Council's consideration. 4. And Further That staff proceed accordingly to advertise and report back to Council with the applications received. BACKGROUND: The Oro - Medonte Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) is a legislated committee, per the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S. 0. 2001, c. 32; and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.D. 2005, c. 11 and has been active since October, 2002. The 2006 -2010 AAC term has ended; accordingly it is necessary to review the structure/ composition to continue the Committee for the 2010 -2014 term of Council. Past compositions of the AAC have included one member of Council to preside as Chair. Historically, Council has appointed either three or four public members, residing within the Township, to serve on the Committee. The Mayor may attend as an ex- officio member. A member from the Clerk's Department attends to provide the corporate Corporate Services — Clerk's Office February 9, 2011 Report No. CS 2011 -02 Page 1 of 4 Page 50 of 252 10b) - Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, ... corporate secretariat function. The Director of Recreation and Community Services has attended as the staff resource person. All AAC meetings are open to the public and the agenda and minutes are posted to the Township's website in accordance with the Township's Procedural by -law. ANALYSIS: Historically, the purpose of the Township's ACC was to promote equal opportunity and access for all persons, regardless of needs, in order that all persons may participate as fully as possible in all aspects of community life in the Township of Oro - Medonte. The mandate of the Township's ACC has been to act as an advisory body to Council. All recommendations have been forwarded to Council for consideration. The ACC has also reviewed the Accessibility Plan annually and recommended goals and objectives relating to accessibility issues in the Township, for Council consideration. The remuneration was paid in accordance with the Township's Remuneration By -Law. It is recommended that the purpose, mandate and remuneration continue in the same manner. Section 12(3) of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 32 provides that a majority of the members of the committee shall include persons with disabilities. A disability is defined in the Act as: (a) any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co- ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device, (b) a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability, (c) a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language, (d) a mental disorder, or (e) an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, ( "handicap') Accordingly, it is recommended that Council approve the composition to be three (3) public members residing within the Township. Corporate Services — Clerk's Office Report No. CS 2011 -02 February 9, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Page 51 of 252 10b) - Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, ... The Director of Recreation and Community Services solicited feedback and reviewed, with the 2006 -2010 AAC, the accomplishments and areas to improve the participation and involvement of the next ACC. Accordingly, the ACC were overall satisfied with their level of contribution. With respect to the 2010 Municipal Election, the ACC members fully approved that an AAC member was provided with copies of the spreadsheet, along with supporting pictures and /or documentation (i.e., correspondence, emails or notes from the 2006 election relating to the potential voting locations) and the list of preferred voting locations identified, for her review and comment. The AAC member and Committee Co- ordinator attended each 2010 Municipal Election preferred vote location to review, identify and address supplementary accessibility issues. FINANCIAL: Remuneration shall be paid as outlined in the Remuneration by -law. POLICIES /LEGISLATION: Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S. 0. 2001, c. 32. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S. 0. 2005, c. 11 CONSULTATIONS: • Director of Recreation and Community Services. • 2006 -2010 Accessibility Advisory Committee members. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: Excerpt of Sections 11 -12 (Duties of Municipalities), Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S. 0. 2001, c. 32. • Attachment 2: Excerpt of Part VII, Section 29 (Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees), Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11. • Attachment 3: Draft By -Law No. 2011 -27, "A By -law to Continue an Accessibility Advisory Committee and to Repeal By -law Nos. 2007 -002 and 2007 - 019 ". Corporate Services — Clerk's Office February 9, 2011 Report No. CS 2011 -02 Page 3 of 4 Page 52 of 252 10b) - Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, ... CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the Oro - Medonte Accessibility Advisory Committee be continued for the 2010 -2014 Term of Council with a composition of one (1) member of Council (Chair), and three (3) public members residing within the Township of Oro - Medonte. The Committee shall promote equal opportunity and access for all persons, regardless of needs, in order that all persons may participate as fully as possible in all aspects of community life in the Township of Oro - Medonte. Respectfully submitted: Janette Teeter Deputy Clerk C.A.O. Approval / Comments: Corporate Services — Clerk's Office Report No. CS 2011 -02 February 9, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Page 53 of 252 10b) - Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, ... Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 32 Page 1 of 2 DUTIES OF MUNICIPALITIES 0.C�11.�1 ` Municipal accessibility plans 11• (1) Each year, the council of every municipality shall, (a) prepare an accessibility plan; and (b) either, (i) seek advice from the accessibility advisory committee that it establishes or continues under subsection 12 (1), or (ii) consult with persons with disabilities and others, if the council has not established or continued an accessibility advisory committee under subsection 12 (1). 2001, c. 32, S. 11 (1). Contents (2 ) The accessibility plan shall address the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to persons with disabilities in the municipality's by -laws and in its policies, programs, practices and services. 2001, c. 32, s. 11 (2). Same The accessibility plan shall include, (a) a report on the measures the municipality has taken to identify, remove and prevent barriers to persons with disabilities; (b) the measures in place to ensure that the municipality assesses its proposals for by- laws, policies, programs, practices and services to determine their effect on accessibility for persons with disabilities; (c) a list of the by -laws, policies, programs, practices and services that the municipality will review in the coming year in order to identify barriers to persons with disabilities; (d) the measures that the municipality intends to take in the coming year to identify, remove and prevent barriers to persons with disabilities; and (e) all other information that the regulations prescribe for the purpose of the plan. 2001, c. 32, s. 11 (3). Availability to the public A municipality shall make its accessibility plan available to the public. 2001, c. 32, s. 11 (4). Accessibility advisory committees 12. (1) The council of every municipality having a population of not less than 10,000 shall establish or continue an accessibility advisory committee and the council of every municipality having a population of less than 10,000 may establish or continue an accessibility advisory committee. 2001, c. 32, s. 12 (1). Duty of committee The committee shall advise the council in each year about the preparation, implementation and effectiveness of its accessibility plan. 2001, c. 32, s. 12 (2). Members A majority of the members of the committee shall include persons with disabilities. 2001, c. 32, s. 12 (3). Duty of council The council shall seek advice from the committee on the accessibility for persons with http: / /www.e- laws. gov. on.ca /htmi/statutes /en ,alish/elaws statutes 01o32 e.htm 1/31/2011 Page 54 of 252 10b) - Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, ... Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 32 Page 2 of 2 disabilities to a building, structure or premises, or part of a building, structure or premises, (a) that the council purchases, constructs or significantly renovates; (b) for which the council enters into a new lease; or (c) that a person provides as municipal capital facilities under an agreement entered into with the council in accordance with section 110 of the Municipal Act, 2001 or section 252 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be. 2001, c. 32, s. 12 (4); 2002, c. 17, Sched. C, s. 18 (2); 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 41. Functions The committee shall, (a) perform the functions set out in this section, including reviewing in a timely manner the site plans and drawings described in section 41 of the Planning Act that the committee selects; and (b) perform all other functions that are specified in the regulations. 2001, c. 32, s. 12 (5). Supplying site plans (6) If the committee selects site plans and drawings described in section 41 of the Planning Act to review, the council shall supply them to the committee in a timely manner for the purpose of the review. 2001, c. 32, s. 12 (6). Municipal goods and services 13. In deciding to purchase goods or services through the procurement process for the use of itself, its employees or the public, the council of every municipality shall have regard to the accessibility for persons with disabilities to the goods or services. 2001, c. 32, s. 13. http: / /www.e- laws. gov. on .ca /html/statutes /english/elaws statutes O1o32 e.htm 1 /I 1 / ?() 1 1 Page 55 of 252 10b) - Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, ... Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O.2005, c. 11 Page 1 of 1 PART VII N1 01fl.iKA MUNICIPAL ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES �y Accessibility advisory committees 29• (1) The council of every municipality having a population of not less than 10,000 shall establish an accessibility advisory committee or continue any such committee that was established before the day this section comes into force. 2005, c. 11, s. 29 (1). Small municipalities The council of every municipality having a population of less than 10,000 may establish an accessibility advisory committee or continue any such committee that was established before the day this section comes into force. 2005, c. 11, s. 29 (2). Members A majority of the members of the committee shall be persons with disabilities. 2005, C. 11, s.29(3). Duties of committee The committee shall, (a) advise the council about the requirements and implementation of accessibility standards and the preparation of accessibility reports and such other matters for which the council may seek its advice under subsection (5); (b) review in a timely manner the site plans and drawings described in section 41 of the Planning Act that the committee selects; and (c) perform all other functions that are specified in the regulations. 2005, c. 11, s. 29 (4). Duty of council The council shall seek advice from the committee on the accessibility for persons with disabilities to a building, structure or premises, or part of a building, structure or premises, (a) that the council purchases, constructs or significantly renovates; (b) for which the council enters into a new lease; or (c) that a person provides as municipal capital facilities under an agreement entered into with the council in accordance with section 110 of the Municipal Act, 2001 or section 252 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 2005, c. 11, s. 29 (5); 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 1. Supplying site plans When the committee selects site plans and drawings described in section 41 of the Planning Act to review, the council shall supply them to the committee in a timely manner for the purpose of the review. 2005, c. 11, s. 29 (6). Joint committees Q Two or more municipalities may, instead of each establishing their own accessibility advisory committee, establish a joint accessibility advisory committee. 2005, c. 11, s. 29 (7). Application Subsections (3) to (6) apply with necessary modifications to a joint accessibility advisory committee. 2005, c. 11, s. 29 (8). http:/ /www.e- laws.gov.on.ca/ht" /statutes /english/elaws statutes 05a11 e.htm 1/3 1 /20 11 Page 56 of 252 10b) - Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE BY -LAW NO. 2011 -027 A By -law to Continue an Accessibility Advisory Committee And to Repeal By -law Nos. 2007 -002 and 2007 -019 WHEREAS Section 12 (1) of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S. 0. 2001, c.32, as amended, provides that the council of every municipality having a population of not less than 10,000 shall establish or continue an accessibility advisory committee; AND WHEREAS Section 29, of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S. 0. 2005, c. 11 provides that the council of every municipality having a population of not less than 10,000 shall establish an accessibility advisory committee or continue any such committee that was established before the day this section comes into force; AND WHEREAS Section 224 of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, provides that the role of Council is to ensure that administrative practices are in place to implement the decisions of Council; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte deems it desirable to pass a by -law to continue an Accessibility Advisory Committee; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte hereby enacts as follows: 1. That an Accessibility Advisory Committee be continued, and that such Committee be known as the Oro - Medonte Accessibility Advisory Committee. 2. That the purpose of the Oro - Medonte Accessibility Advisory Committee shall be to promote equal opportunity and access for all persons, regardless of needs, in order that all persons may participate as fully as possible in all aspects of community life in the Township of Oro - Medonte. 3. That the mandate of the Oro - Medonte Accessibility Advisory Committee shall be: a) To act as an advisory body to Council. All recommendations shall be forwarded to Council for consideration; b) To review the Accessibility Plan annually and recommend goals and objectives relating to accessibility issues in the Township, for Council consideration. 4. That the following persons shall be appointed as members of the Oro - Medonte Accessibility 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: One (1) Council Member (Chair) Three (3) Members of the Public Mayor (ex- officio) 5. That one (1) member of Council shall be a non - voting member of the Oro - Medonte Accessibility Advisory Committee. 6. That persons appointed to the Oro - Medonte Accessibility Advisory Committee shall be paid such remuneration and as outlined in the Remuneration By -Law. Page 57 of 252 10b) - Report No. CS 2011 -02, Doug Irwin, 7. That By -law Nos. 2007 -002 and 2007 -019 are hereby repealed in their entirety. 8. This by -law shall take effect on the final passing thereof. BY -LAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME, AND PASSED THIS 23 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. Mayor, H.S. Hughes Clerk, J. Douglas Irwin Page 58 of 252 10c) - Report No. CS 2011 -03, Doug Irwin, ... �o1.1�nshl,7 0f REPORT C���� � Proud Heritage, Exciting Future Report No. CS 2011 -03 To: Council Prepared By: Janette Teeter Meeting Date: February 9, 2011 Subject: Recreation Technical Support Group Structure for 2010 -2014 Term of Council Motion # Roll #: R.M.S. File #: RECOMMENDATION(S): Requires Action I X I For Information Only It is recommended that: 1. Report No. CS 2011 -03 be received and adopted. 2. That the Oro - Medonte Recreation Technical Support Group be continued for the 2010 -2014 Term of Council with a composition of two (2) members of Council (Chair), five (5) public members residing within the Township of Oro - Medonte and the Mayor as an ex- officio member. 3. That the appropriate by -law be brought forward for Council's consideration. 4. And Further That staff proceed accordingly to advertise and report back to Council with the applications received. BACKGROUND: The 2006 -2010 Recreation Technical Support Group (RTSG) term has ended; accordingly it is necessary to review the structure/ composition to continue the Group for the 2010 -2014 term of Council. Past compositions of the RTSG have included two (2) members of Council, one of which presided as Chair. Historically, Council has appointed five (5) public members, residing within the Township, to serve on the Group. In 2008 and 2009, an alternate Group member was appointed when there were less than five (5) voting members present at any meeting. Corporate Services — Clerk's Office Report No. CS 2011 -03 February 9, 2011 Page 1 of 3 Page 59 of 252 10c) - Report No. CS 2011 -03, Doug Irwin, ... The Mayor may attend as an ex- officio member. A member from the Clerk's Department attends to provide the corporate secretariat function. The Director of Recreation and Community Services has attended as the staff resource person. All RTSG meetings are open to the public and the agenda and minutes are posted to the Township's website in accordance with the Township's Procedural by -law. ANALYSIS: Historically, the mandate of the RTSG was to act as an advisory body to Council. Accordingly all recommendations were forwarded to Council for consideration. The Group made recommendations with respect to the policies, goals and objectives to provide effective and efficient delivery of recreational services. The remuneration was paid in accordance with the Township's Remuneration By -Law. Accordingly, it is recommended that the mandate and remuneration for the RTSG continue in this manner. During the 2006 -2010 term, the composition of the RTSG was five (5) public members. Staff recognize the importance and value of the five (5) public member composition due to the Township's diverse and rural community, numerous parks, community halls and policies, strategic facility plan, Recreation Guide etc. It is recommended that the appointment of an "alternate" group member be discontinued. Accordingly, it is recommended that the composition of the RTSG be five (5) public members; that two (2) members of Council be appointed to the Group; and one member preside as Chair. FINANCIAL. Remuneration shall be paid as outlined in the Remuneration by -law. POLICIES /LEGISLATION: None. Corporate Services — Clerk's Office February 9, 2011 Report No. CS 2011 -03 Page 2 of 3 Page 60 of 252 10c) - Report No. CS 2011 -03, Doug Irwin, ... CONSULTATIONS: • Director of Recreation and Community Services. • 2006 -2010 Recreation Technical Support Group members. ATTACHMENTS: Draft By -Law No. 2011 -028, "A By -law to Continue a Recreation Technical Support Group and to Repeal By -law No. 2007 - 005 ". CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the Oro - Medonte Recreation Technical Support Group be continued for the 2010 -2014 Term of Council with a composition of two (2) members of Council; with one Council member to preside as Chair; five (5) public members residing within the Township of Oro - Medonte; and the Mayor as an ex- officio member. Respectfully submitted: Janette Teeter Deputy Clerk SMT Comments: I C.A.O. Approval / Comments: rd Corporate Services — Clerk's Office Report No. CS 2011 -03 February 9, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Page 61 of 252 10c) - Report No. CS 2011 -03, Doug Irwin, THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE BY -LAW NO. 2011 -028 A By -law to Continue a Recreation Technical Support Group And to Repeal By -law No. 2007 -005 WHEREAS Section 224 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, provides that the role of Council is to ensure that the administrative practices are in place to implement the decisions of Council; AND WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to continue a Recreation Technical Support Group; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte hereby enacts as follows: 1. That a Recreation Technical Support Group be continued, and that such Group be known as the Oro - Medonte Recreation Technical Support Group. 2. That the mandate of the Oro - Medonte Recreation Technical Support Group shall be: • To act as an advisory body to Council. All recommendations shall be forwarded to Council for consideration; • To recommend policies, goals and objectives to provide effective and efficient delivery of recreational services; 3. That the following persons shall be appointed as members of the Oro - Medonte Recreation Technical Support Group 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: Two (2) Council Members; one Council member to preside as Chair Five (5) Members of the Public Mayor (ex- officio) 4. That two (2) members of Council shall be non - voting members of the Oro - Medonte Recreation Technical Support Group. 5. That persons appointed to the Oro - Medonte Recreation Technical Support Group shall be paid such remuneration as outlined in the Remuneration by -law. 6. That By -law No. 2007 -005 is hereby repealed in its entirety. 7. This by -law shall take effect on the final passing thereof. BY -LAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME, AND PASSED THIS 23 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE Mayor, H.S. Hughes Clerk, J. Douglas Irwin Page 62 of 252 10e) - Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh... r : I;_:MWF M ei I �p Proud Heritage, Exciting Future Report No. DS 2011 -005 To: Council Prepared By: Glenn White, Manager of Planning Services Meeting Date: February 9, 2011 Subject: Request for Extension of Draft Plan Approval Motion # Roll #: R.M.S. File #: RECOMMENDATION(S): Requires Action For Information Only It is recommended: 1. THAT Report No. DS 2011 -005 be received and adopted. 2. THAT Council approve the extensions to draft plan approval for 2063334 Ontario Inc. (formerly Keyzer) 43 -OM- 90082, and J. Johnston Construction Limited 43 -OM- 93003 for a period of one year; and 1452711 Ontario Limited /Capobianco for a period of two years; 3. AND THAT the affected owners be advised of Council's decision. BACKGROUND: In January 27, 2010, Council considered Report DS 2010 -004 and adopted a motion which approved extensions of one year for the draft plan approvals (until February 28, 2011) affecting the following two applications: (1) 638230 Ontario Limited ( Keyzer) now 2063334 Ontario Inc. 43 -OM -90082 and (2) J. Johnson Construction Limited 43 -OM -93003 In February 2009, Council considered Report DS 2009 -009 and adopted a motion which approved a two year extension to the draft plan approval for 1452711 Ontario Limited /Capobianco 43- OM- 93022. A map outlining the location of the three draft plans subject to this report is contained in Attachment 1 of this report. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Report No. DS 2011 -005 Page 1 of 9 Page 63 of 252 10e) - Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh... The landowners have submitted correspondence requesting extensions to their draft plan approval; the purpose of this report is to analyze these requests and make recommendations to Council. ANALYSIS: I In order to receive final approval from the Township and proceed to registration of the plan of subdivision, the applicant is required to clear all conditions imposed by the approval authority (Township) and provide the appropriate clearance letters from the required agencies. A summary of each application has been provided below with their reasons for requesting Council's consideration in a draft plan extension. 638230 Ontario Ltd. Mewed 43 -OM -90082 The applicant purchased the subdivision in February 2010 and has been actively working with the Township and the NVCA in regards to a revision to the existing draft approved plan ( "redline" plan). The "redline" plan was presented to Council late in 2010 and specific issues related to parkland and sidewalks were required to be addressed before further Council consideration. It is anticipated that the "redline" plan will be presented to Council in February for consideration; and if approved by Council, the applicant would then be in a position to proceed towards satisfying the revised conditions and plan registration. Detailed engineering work has been initiated on this application with a revised set of engineering drawings received by the NVCA and the Township in December 2010 for review. A series of meetings with NVCA staff have occurred to assess the required storm water facilities. J. Johnston Construction Ltd, 43 -OM -93003 The applicant has completed a further engineering design which included substantial amendments from previous designs for the development. Detailed review comments were provided by the Township and NVCA in November 2010 and the Township is awaiting the updated engineering design drawings. County of Simcoe review of the proposed access and required road widening was completed in 2010 and the Township is currently awaiting approval comments from the County and MTO. Once the final drawings obtain approval, the applicant will be in a position to proceed to a subdivision agreement and registration. 1452711 Ontario Limited /Capobianco The applicant and their engineering have had several engineering and design meetings with Township and NVCA staff over the past year in addition to the initial discussions regarding the plan registration process. The applicant has also been involved in discussions with the Township regarding the 6 th line re- alignment and potential phasing of the development. The proposed first phase would involve a total of 23 lots consisting of lots 1 to 15 and lots 76 to 83. These lots would be the proposed lots south of Horseshoe Valley Road and east of Hickory Lane and Maple Court in the Sugarbush subdivision. The applicant has contributed over $500,000 towards the construction of a new well and treatment facilities located on the 2008628 Ontario Limited (Diamond DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Report No. DS 2011 -005 Page 2 of 9 Page 64 of 252 10e) - Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh... Valley Estates) lands. The applicant has also had discussion with staff regarding to initiate the start of the preparation of subdivision agreement for the proposed Phase 1 development. Staff have reviewed each request individually, and confirm that while these files maybe at various stages, each application is proceeding towards registration. Given this, staff is recommending that a one year extension be provided to 2063334 Ontario Inc. (formerly Keyzer) 43 -OM -90082 and J. Johnston Construction Limited 43 -OM- 93003; and that a two year extension be provided to 1452711 Ontario Limited /Capobianco. FINANCIAL: N/A POLICIES /LEGISLATION: The Planning Act, in Section 51 (32) provides the ability for an approval authority to provide approval lapses at the expiration of the time period specified by the approval authority, being not less than three years. In Section 51(44), of the Planning Act provides the ability for the approval authority to withdraw the approval of a draft plan of subdivision. Section 51(33) provides the ability for the approval authority to extend the lapsing date of draft approval of a plan of subdivision /condominium. Notice to these changes is required to be given following any decision to change conditions and is subject to the appeal process. The Planning Act contains a provision wherein the approval authority can impose a lapsing of draft plan approval. This is useful in some instances where registration will not occur due to various circumstances. Without this `sunset clause', draft plans can remain open in perpetuity and form unrealistic growth forecast on lands which may never be realized. The Township's Official Plan outlines in Section E1.9 "Existing Draft Plan Approved Residential Subdivision" provide the following policy: "A considerable number of vacant lots existed in Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision in the rural area on the date this Plan was adopted by Council. Some of these subdivisions are located in areas that have not been identified in the Plan as being appropriate for development since such development may have an impact on the rural character of the area and on the cost effectiveness of providing municipal services. In addition, the development of a number of these subdivisions may have a cumulative negative impact on the natural heritage system that this Plan is trying to protect. In this regard, it is the intent of Council to withdraw a draft approval after an appropriate period of time has elapsed if a subdivision is not proceeding to development stage in an expeditious manner". DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Report No. DS 2011 -005 Page 3 of 9 Page 65 of 252 10e) - Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh... The above noted draft plan of subdivisions are actively working toward the fulfillment of their individual conditions of draft plan approval. All of the draft plans discussed in this report are located within Settlement Areas designated in the Township's Official Plan. CONSULTATIONS: Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan The Planning Act, Section 51 Planning Division Staff ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Extension of Draft Plan Approval Location Map Attachment 2: Request for Extension (1452711 Ontario Limited) Attachment 3: Request for Extension (2063334 Ontario Inc. — Keyzer /Meadow Acres) CONCLUSION: On the basis of the above it is recommended that extensions to the draft plan approvals from the current lapsing date of February, 2011 be granted to the applicants to allow them to proceed with the registration of the subdivision. The applicants' will further be advised that further extensions by Council will be discouraged. Respectfully submitted: Glenn White, MCI P, P Manager of Planning Services SMT Approval / Comments: I C.A.O. Approval / Comments: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Report No. DS 2011 -005 Page 4 of 9 Page 66 of 252 10e) - Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh... ATTACHMENT 1: EXTENSION OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL LOCATION MAP DEVELOPMENT SERVIC Report No. DS 2011 -005 Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Page 5 of 9 Page 67 of 252 10e) - Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh... ATTACHMENT 2: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL (1452711 ONTARIO LIMITED) 805 2'640069 04 :17: i f. p.m. 10-05 -2010 1 0 VALDOR ENGINEERING INC. �-_ MenrW-Lold oaveiopmed - wokx Oex.Yd% SNe �fN •Rc1p". -i Mtmm • CIXSfifx't ntlnvn�s(�ttdc, kW A; 3a= 126d -0O5e fnz t�6 26a0969 Consu rng c , ears - est I M 05 October 2010 File: 02114 -PM Township of Oro- Medonte 148 Line 7 South, Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Attention, Ms.Andria Leigh Director of Development Services PeArMs Leigh Re: 1452711 Ontario Limited Draft Plan Approval 43T -93022 Request, For 2 Year Extension OMB File # 5940008 Part Lots 1 & 2, Concession 7 Horseshoe Valley Roadl6 Line Township of Oro- Medonte i'urther to our meeting of yesterday at your offices with Mr. Glenn White, Mr. Jerry Ball, .Mr. Al tees and our Clients Mr. Guido Papa and Mr. John Biancucci of 1452711 Ontario Limited we wish to formally request on our Client's behalf a two year extension ofthe draft plan approval. for the above rioted residential subdivision. As you tire aware. the above tands were part of an extensive OMB hearing during 1994 at V. * h time they were granted draft plan approval without a lapsing provision, Furthermore, these lands were owned by others until our Clients prlrchaSed therm in fate 2(7'01. Since purchasing the lands out Clients have been, actively working towards registrationof the final plan of subdivision and have taken the following steps amongst others. 1. Met with.yourself and other Township staff on. numerous occasions lo discuss projeci,- related issues. 2. Submitted draft ski -Plan to the Township of Oro- ;aiedonte and R,G. Robinson Associates-on July 1- (1.2002 mquesting your comments. + ti"faslnnnl EnA nters .Autn(>� by tie nSSCCO[Cr of Ptofe$sjcnat E+igV:eers Onrado of'ordado to etfetixow4o - Ldf 3rlgfne� - fng serAcea: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Report No. DS 2011 -005 Page 6 of 9 Page 68 of 252 10e) - Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh... 9Q$2640". 04:17,29 P.M. 10- 05-2010 217 Township U ore.Medonte 05 Oreobcr 2019 Ms. Andrea Leigh 02114 -OM 3. Submitted letter to OMB art. February 15, 20.02 trout ing:theitt of activity on the file and agreeing W transfer final approval autborityy to the Township. We also submitted a similar status update to the OMB on 29 July, 2010 as per the attached' copy, 4 Engaged the services of an Ontario land Surveyor to prepare the necessary calculated plan for registration, reference plans easement plans, etc. 5, Engaged the services of Valdor Engineering Inc, to prepare the necessary engineering designs, studies, reports, tender contracts, etc, to construct the services and roads which are ongoing. b. Engaged the services of a soil engineer to perform field investigations, prepare a aeotedwical. report and provide site nspectionsftesting during construction, 7. Engaged the services of an environmental consultant to complete field monitoring and establish background environmental baseline information including reports. 8. Participated as an active member of the Coulson Area Environmental Committee to establish the environmental protocols of the committee as required by the OMB decision.. 4. Purchased a small parcel of land frortr Rowanwood Conserver Society Co- operative Inc. to complete the mad linkage between this subdivision and the, lands to the south as required by the OMB decision.. This culminated in the May 5, 20,04 decision by Township Council to expropriate the lands to achieve the road linkage since Rowanwood was notco- operative in the sale ofthe lands. 10. Met with your Ms. Jennifer Zielenieski on numerous occasions to discuss deleting the private recreation facility requirement for this site and the lands to the south in favour of A public facility and agreeing to contribute funds towards this facility instead of the private facility An agreement was entered into by all parties, 11. Revised lotting configuration to allow for a Block to be used forpedestrian's access to the,aforesaid public facility, 12. Agreed to reducing the depth of a number of lots thereby creating a larger Open Space block and further agreed to dedicate all the Open Space block to the Township instead of private interests. 13. Completed the detailed engineering designs for the roads and services. The third engineering submission to the Township, the County and the CotuMervation.Authority was made on September 30, 2010. 14, Met with the conservation authorit }e to discusslagree on methodsto address storitlwater management requirements for tile site. 15. Revised the extent of the wertand boundaries by retaining - Nielsen. Associates and dealing with MNR and the Conservation Authority. 16, Purchased and paid in full the equivalent of two. lots bm the Township of Oro- Medonte front the previously designated park block, thereby creating a total of 81 Lots, 17. Participated m and signed an agreement with the Township for the constructional S. eetwatcr Park and contributed $98,538.81 as their share of the parks contribution. 18, Cleared all the road allowances of trees in anticipation of servicing the subdivision. i 9, Undertaken an ongoing environmental monitoring program to confirm background data according to the OMBVeclsion and Environmental Committee protocol. Page VALLYP DEVELOPMENT SERVK Report No. DS 2011 -005 Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Page 7 of 9 Page 69 of 252 10e) - Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh... 0020WO 04;17,-:51 p.m. 10-05-2010 "N Township of Oro- Medante Ms. Andrea Leigh 05 october 20 t 02114 -PM 213: Met with yortr staff to initiate the registratiwtpwcess for the entire subdivisirltz: 21. Met with your staff to discuss phasing related requirements. 22. Met with your staffto discuss the O Line realignment. 23_ Submitted a format request to the Township to initiate: preparation oflhesubdivision agreement for Phase 1 of the development. 24. Contributed over $500,006.00 towards the ednstruction of a new well and treatment facilities located on the 2008628 Ontario ltd. bands. As can be seen out Clients have been actively working to achieve final registration and dealing with the numerous issues some of which are still outstanding. It is our Client's intent to proceed to register the final plan of subdivision by the earliest possible date an every effort will be made to achieve it. Our client's have taken many steps towards final registration and spent aconsiderabie amount; of money towards achieving this goal. They have fully co- operated with the adjacent iandownerm and the Township of Oro- Medonte at all times and continue to do so without reservations. Our Client's have made a firm commitment to developing these lands and we intend to complete this project at the earliest date. On behalf of our clients, we respectfully request that Council of the Township of Oro- Mcdonte approve our request for a two year extension of the draft plan approval for the above noted lands. Yours very truly; VAL GIN ING.INC. Patric apob' o, g President C. TownshipofOro Medonte, Attention; 1452711 Ontario Limited, attention:. Mr. Glenn White(Fsxt f- 705487.0133)_ .Mr. Jerry Ball tFax; 0934V-0 Mr. G' Papa tFax: 9%2fr4.2728) Mr-4 13iBrlcuccl(Fu: Pant 3 V ' � VAL DCDR L DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Report No. DS 2011 -005 Page 8 of 9 Page 70 of 252 10e) - Report No. DS 2011 -05, Andria Leigh... ATTACHMENT 3: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL (2063334 ONTARIO LTD. — (KEYZER)) 2063334 Ontario Inc. 255 Duncan Mill, Suite 801,Toronto, M3D 3B9 y Fax/Maid January 24, 2011 Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South Box 100, Oro Ontario LOL 2X0 Attn: Andria Leigh RE CE - TV JAN 7 8 2011 ORO- MEDONI E 7bWNgHIP Re: 43 -OM- 90082, Meadow Acres Subdivision This is a formal request for extension of draft plan approval for one year until February 27, 2012. As you are aware, 2063334 Ontario Inc acquired the subject subdivision back in February 2010. Since then, we have been actively working with the Township and NVCA to finalize the red -line revision of its draft plan. In addition, we have been submitted a complete set of final engineering submissions back in December 2010: We are committed to work with the Township to finalize the engineering submissions to proceed to a subdivision agreement and registration. If you have any question please contact me the undersigned Yours ttvly 2063334 Ontario Inc. Galen Lam Director Tel:.416341 -6700 Fm416391 -6703 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Report No. DS 2011 -005 Page 9 of 9 Page 71 of 252 1Of) - Report No. CSI 2011 -01, Donna Hewit... 7'awnship of REPORT Proud Heritage, Exciting Future Report No. To: Prepared By: CSI 2011 -01 Donna Hewitt, Director of Council Corporate & Strategic Initiatives Meeting Date: Subject: Motion # February 9' 2011 Corporate Strategic Planning Roll #: R.M.S. File #: RECOMMENDATION(S): Requires Action I X I For Information Only It is recommended: 1. THAT Report No. CSI 2011 -01 be received, 2. THAT Council adopted the strategies as presented as the draft Corporate Strategic Plan, 3. And that, the Director of CSI proceed with the Next Steps identified in the Report. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS: History: In the spring of 2010, Council and the CAO conducted two facilitated strategic planning workshop sessions. The workshops focus was to fully document existing corporate decision making processes and identify for Council refinements to further align operational and corporate planning efforts. In keeping with Goals (see Appendix A — Corporate Mission and Goals) established by Council, a series of corporate strategies were identified which were subsequently aligned to the Township's Performance Management Process and utilized by Council, the CAO and the Senior Management Team throughout the balance of 2010. Current Process: With the municipal election of 2010 and in recognition of the importance of keeping the Corporate Strategic Plan current and reflective of the needs of our residents, the newly elected representatives began a process in late November 2010 to refresh the plan and strategies. During Council orientation, a workshop was held to identify issues raised by Township residents and businesses that would have consideration in the Corporate Strategic Plan. Report No CSI 2011 -01 Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Page 1 of 3 Page 72 of 252 1Of) - Report No. CSI 2011 -01, Donna Hewit... Staff reviewed the current strategic plan, and presented to Council in early January 2011 a list of potential strategies reflecting those issues raised in late 2010 as well as those strategies not yet completed but included in the previous Corporate Plan. These potential strategies were aligned with the Corporate Goals noted in Appendix A. Council worked through a two -stage prioritizing process resulting in the draft plan included in Appendix B & C attached to this report. Appendix B includes those strategies which were identified as already ongoing and are scheduled to be complete in 2011/2012 while Appendix C outlines the remaining draft strategies in priority order. Next Steps: The framework to be followed throughout the next stage of development and finalization of the Township's Strategic Plan will enable the community to provide input in terms of Council's Draft Priorities. It is proposed that we utilize a multi- faceted approach to ensure the information reaches the general public as well as community stakeholders. 1. The general community will be reached through the use of a combination of the Township website, travelling Council meetings throughout the Township and print media such as the Recreation & Community Guide and the North Simcoe Community News. 2. Targeted meetings specific to the interests of various sectors of the community will be held with community stakeholders. In order to provide consistency of information, these meetings will be structured such that specific questions will be asked of participants. All information gathered during this community consultation process will be reviewed and taken into consideration prior to Council's approval of the Final Corporate Strategic Plan. The approved Corporate Strategic Plan will form a component in the overall Corporate Plan which is reflective of a variety of elements such as the Economic Development Plan, the Strategic Facilities Plan, Long -Term Capital Financial Plans and Departmental /Operational Plans. All components noted above will form the direction for staff with respect to budgeting, capital forecasting and performance management. The ability of staff to complete these objectives is a direct reflection of the resources available — both time /staff and finances. FINANCIAL: Staff will utilize where possible existing communication tools to minimize costs. POLICIES /LEGISLATION: n/a CSI Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Report No CSI 2011 -01 Page 2 of 3 Page 73 of 252 1Of) - Report No. CSI 2011 -01, Donna Hewit... CONSULTATIONS: Mayor & Members of Council CAO Senior Management Team ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A — Township of Oro - Medonte: Corporate Mission & Goals Appendix B - Township of Oro - Medonte: Strategies Ongoing Appendix C — Township of Oro - Medonte: Draft Priority Strategies CONCLUSION: The development of the Corporate Strategic Plan is a critical component of the overarching Corporate Plan for the Township of Oro - Medonte. In combination with Operational Plans, the Corporate Strategic Plan, reflective of the needs of the community, will form the direction for staff and performance management for the Corporation for the term of Council. Respectfully submitted: Donna Hewitt Director Corporate & Strategic Initiatives C.A.O. Approval / Comments: csi Report No CSI 2011 -01 Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Page 74 of 252 1Of) - Report No. CSI 2011 -01, Donna Hewit... Appendix A — Corporate Mission & Goals Township of Oro - Medonte — Strategic Plan Update 2011 Mission: "To provide service excellence while building a sustainable, fiscally sound and healthy community that preserves Oro- Medonte's rural character and enriches quality of life." Goals: 1. Quality of Life: "To contribute to an enriched quality of life for residents by maintaining Oro - Medonte's natural beauty and country-like character and by providing opportunities that encourage community participation in activities and recreational programs. 2. Safe & Healthy Community: "To ensure that Oro - Medonte policies and programs promote a safe and secure environment while encouraging healthy lifestyles." 3. Service Excellence: "To provide a welcoming, courteous and professional culture of service excellence on the part of Council and Township staff." 4. Sustainability: "To build an increasingly sustainable community with regard for, and sensitivity to the needs of future generations." 5. Financial Stewardship: "To continue to improve value received in the expenditure of tax dollars as well as maintaining a financial position that is fiscally found for the Township." 6. Employer of Choice: "To attract, motivate and retain a well - qualified staff that directly contributes to the attainment of the Corporate Goals." 7. External Relations: "To be recognized as a "good neighbour" with municipalities in the local area and to be proactive in promoting the interests of the Township at the County, Provincial and Federal levels of Government and with private sector organizations." Page 75 of 252 1Of) - Report No. CSI 2011 -01, Donna Hewit... Page 76 of 252 c c c o c c c (D cc U CU (c 0 E O >1 E O a. °3 OL c 0 O o- N U) C U � a) c O 7 O a Mn '> cz '�- 00 a) Q cz CUB C13 m o CL w a :2 a) O U a E co o a x cc °' C a) O_ CIS Cn - 0 c = C/) �? a C c c O N c a) a) L i O U) c O 0 m a > c a) a) i C _O O N W a_ > w m O O O O a) c 0 a) a) c0 co co 0 2 ccz cc N 0 C c L O O O O a) L O Q Q C L O r Cc 0 O cd 0 c eq O N c a) c a) c a) c a) a) v 0 c ° cn p 2 0 (D dD E m E a) E a) E a) u, -a m c 3 ;_ a) a w _ •� Q1 c a) E a = '� Co c CZ cu c c .� a) a) cc O 0 c O �a c0) a �� .Q cn U C u �+C—,, 0 a 0 0 0 E ' as c o a) c c o o bA C cc cca cc cc cc � N • �� O 0 a) ~ E Mn d dJ V O 't o 't O 't O It o E 0 c cc c .E "= -E Q .w v) ra i C a) y a) a) a) c cc cc 0 cn ro () cn c mcc > >° > U) in E � �3 Q pp y = c U) c c N c c *- 0 0 x G E L.0 CD L a) t� s a) `O -0 Q O -0- ca ca 0 "a a) N E O (D m CL 0 CL 0 CL cc .� a) c w a) 2� U 0- E a) oca) O � C. O C - Ec O E >, O c0 Ev 0-0 E O o � 0 a (� ,r h c C o - v N E i a) m C. a O E 0 a V c U c c 0 a) o c a c 0 a) > Q s cc p ca -0 °) m c� cc co 9 L C�6 7 cc a) C U c L o o o o fl m .- Co o a cc c� c co a) a) 3 = '?� cQ 2 ccz o cU O� c o a c c 0 0 c a Wco r- � �°0 ca o cc Y is cc E c 0 c E 3 »- m O c C Q O + c N a) +r c 0 a) c a) O C E 2 a) c 'c E Q N cz . N O N m0 m0 m N a) c a) U >� a) a� >Ow O N 'a a ai �•� oc �m 0 Q p Q CIS C O 0 c o i 0 E L E E`r E ° a N c C a) O co cc o ca _ cc a a1 `� O E ''= 0 0 0 '� a) a) > _ c� c c c E c c m cc a � -0 "a¢ a� . c o - 0 a "a o 0 0 o c2 c o c a) E C mw ca tea) E � o ° as ca Co ° c o o cc 0 �cC EE c E (a) N 0 Ui c � - d � E 6 E a E o E 0' o a o o 0 0 0 c..-, 0 a i a O a N E c N L N a i m a)E a) W (D aM cCD a� aac c Cl) a)a OH a)� 0 aE 0 a 0 0° Ud CL �d(L ""o 00 0�� a w a) S a U U o cc cc< Page 76 of 252 1Of) - Report No. CSI 2011 -01, Donna Hewit... L ° L 3 U) Y •> N U) U E c c ro L E N a) L C O U c� O co x 0)a L c a) ro +. > > E a) O O cu = O -0 M a ro ate+ C LL cis Q O C a C U E Co � O ca N cm � O a) L ' c U 0 C ro 3 -- 3 = O (D .N (� cu N M c Q O U c O LL co a) y O 0 0) Q � 010 U a) � O F a) cd Y a) _ro ° cis c C CD o U) -0 E " E O a) 0 (n to L V) C m E r- O C OQ Q f- �O a) C W "6 3 a) -a �+ cn O Q (D y E > -C a) ro ° "- (n C I— a) _ N 0 O ,O O C ca a) - U O t C O O O 3 U U a) 2 CD s -c-, U L (n � 0 E 0) ro (D C_ ro v- C O cn Y _ C a 0 c " v - a) w O O O Q O C i Q. ca a) 012 > (n v = ro > c E (n 3 rl .0 C C O ro "O 0 '0 O ro E Vl f C L 0 3 Q ro a) -0 "0 O a) U O N O C Y RS y L m (a X a) U) Q ro 0 O E c U � (n 0 ca te a) E c L Q 0) o 0) °— a L O Q ro •J aci O - a) o c C (n C v) C O U 'a .= a) co Q C Q v L U a) C) O a) 3 3 ° '� m O cn 0 , a) 'i � (D U , 'p (n - ... U) C a E Y C _ O CL ID — c a - c E o v o a ' 'oo ro 3 �. O L Q 0 U) c L C 4 0 0 U C Q O --- CU a- C m Q 3 cu . ( c v� in E 3 o C o -2 m •E ca n c L �� ca E c ° L CL a 0 N -0 c 0 � F- a- o ro Q 0 (n C � 3 C (0 O ar a) Q — -a CU a °) c c cn N a c(3n roo m c o(D °'aa ( c x� Eo !E a mo me a)a �� a °ro U) o QC ro ro0N Ea) QE �� ~� a p 0 0 0 c cc 3 L X O E 3 ro U CU s C C L C (Z O Gl O a).2 0 Q 0 Q = O cu a) O i i ro O ca U CL d C CO U) C " -0 ca L O C — a) Q U E N O C 'N O CO 3 0 O' (D O Es ro E° Q� 0)U ro c �� c E Q c o X m as - m (n o o ro Q m c W .- Co �- N ro a> C O O O a v- Q O ca a) c0 Q (D Q E 0 V U a) ° (n Q a Q v) a � a) 0 U i(s Q — a) — 3 O 0 L a 3 C -> N ro -a .> C L vi a -c �N oV co ca Em a Zvi �'as LC cno Eco �c sro roH Ln. Q)c a) c� a) c: CZ 2 0) d ° co rn ca O >, 0 � a as Q p ro 00 U) H a) 0 c co o o � a) o o a ° u c -E o c m a)c`na ° a) °c3) Qu a > �� UE ro� ro �� c0 E c (n c ro 0 - 0 (D ro o c a Q •rn cn -0 V - — ro U > ro 0 33 » -C CS 0 ° Q� a c�a �v rn° acic w a� �ro C a) a�i lL m- Q •° o c 0 > E ro E c o ai E 3 a) c (n a) ro Q � (n v U) Q E Q iri v CU U C U_ C .N a) ` a" •- 3 U s= O 'a O a) C m Q a) _ oc ro �-0 "= c �'� >c > >L E'5 a U u o a L O ¢ . Q> U U) a 0 Cr > U m 0 r CL T (n co o G co N 0 T co T U) V C6 Ln 4 Ln L6 vi T r L() N Page 77 of 252 ]0)- Report NO. CSI 20]]- 01,Donna Hew ±. ) ¥ m cr . � a z \ 5 =3 § # ) o E § ] 15 / / M U -0 c % C 0 ° 3 c .. 0 0 0) $ ) £ E 2 0 s 0 ® E c c_ c t o = o = o ® # e 0 E E e% § g -0 # / / s v co _ % a @ m I � \ � \ 0 / o > a) 3 T o O == 2± » E � \ k ƒ \ 2 E \ § / \ \ / 0k 0 / k 2 / o o 0 E 0 0 : ca m \§ CL o 0 o E 0/ .2 k / \ \ \ c / 0 / 0 k / 2 . k \ / \ � \ d \ 0 CL % } : E ° ° 2 ) / 2 - ° ) a= 3 E ° _ %• E 0 Cl) 2 2 5 f E z )§ \{ £ ± �k \ % D 0. /ƒ \0 j / § 2 k 0 n o_ u � \ \ , \ g \ 0 § 7 \ 2 -(h m £0 0 0= @o 0 ■ 0 2 \ ?� a E § - % 6 / 2 % 2 E 2$ 2 2= e o c Q S ° CL � k � � ' - ± D 0 cu r� ® 2 0 )\ 5 c° _ca % 0 co k E \ / / 0 � �k $ \ / :( @ 5 e 5 7 \ \ \ k / 0 »c 5 0° 2 0 c E \/ k/ / %� \ \k �k § ° E 2 _ m— 2»= o E R § �� 0 \ ( 0 \ co \ .E 0 $ / / 0 2 § / ) $ \ / $ 2 / _ % o ± u . O o % \ @ - 5 r- 5 — c p 0 CO £ _% 0 f 7 2 ? \ 2 p 2 ° 2 \_ ° ° (D ° ® E E 7 § 0 § % ± o 0 E U) E E£ _ a . . 0 2 � 5% 2 0 e 0 0 E 0 . 0 k 0 0 e 3:•2 > k > § f 2 E \/ 0 E f\ f 3 E 3 3 f 3 3 q 3 2 0 i S ƒ/ ƒ 0 2 — % m o n — M h § rq 2 w w ¥ w w K r IM g � o Page 78 of 252 1Of) - Report No. CSI 2011 -01, Donna Hewit... Page 79 of 252 co -O O t! O co a) co N m CD ++ (n E '- a- U - O + O Q- (D N > 0 7 c = a) a) co C7 O O Q co Y U > m Co O co 0 of co O + 0 En c N a) 7 U ' c Q a) 1 CD +- ~ C C L W fL m E c a) co 7 cn a) as Cn Cl) a) U O N O E � a) O o o Y as Q c cC U) E O 3 a) L) E o 3 0'S v - a c c co a) io 0 c z — (n co c� `� o c N E E c Y a c CO O p o Q 0 O 0 O U F J - a) T(D ' CU f Q� U Q ui �) U m� a) Ea U o .F n a) a) E c Q CL O 0 c U) z �°' -O O ns U N � C E Uj ) m a) U a) O. N -o O co a) 0 N_ c O 7 O a) ca .� C i i Q '� O 3 CL "O 7 C Q co co C N O o 5 O O O a) 3 C A) G Q O O E a) W� > >1 >+ U io O •� .E 0 0 O C E. M Q. t U c o � o a ro =_ O y U c M y 1 H O m () co > N cu a) c io a) co U a�01 @ �— 3 a) .N+ c (� U �) O_ U O ° a` ) a) E O c � O - 0 c co a) 'O .0 a) U .0 a+ N a) U) CTS v .� C a) C Y i > Q c ° U - O O U > O a) O N C/) p O C co .� � O a) C- d (� t O o� a) O ca C -a O coo co O cn X cu ca m .. .55 Q E co v c a) c CL O 0) $ 0 L a) - a co - c : a) s � � � � O � � ca d o D >, a) = U) a) O 3 � o N L > 0) O a mo L c CU O Q. N U) N U Q. t Q >, O ca '� cC Q cu O C O O a) 3 > Cn O O O D� CL (n � 3 3Q �fl _� ) a) = - (n a) 0- O E V > E . 00 O U p N a —O ) a) N fl O U U a) >, [tf N cu a) � C O U :3 0 a) a) N a) c U C a) m a) w c "- a) a) O -C .r '3 > .N E D t i a- a) c c E co - 3 c ca O Q. .. c N m & o 3 a) � c 0-5 y c° O- � Q O O c W O U c c + a ) (n M - 0 m a) � c 3 O a) Q O Q O O > a) o a�ci E m `° Ern o� cL � o H v E0 mE O O 4- M O 7 cz O (n a7 co j O OU > O _ O aa) i C O Q V O Q Q c O O E 0 (n a) N a) co E rn _ E c co c c in .V N CU a) rn � 0 E p � O ca E c � � O a) E a) E U 0) cm �• I a) CD a) c v q) c o a) a) c n o 0 3 o 0 o f c 0 a) co c a te .+ X >> C > H > Q > > O C E O O T M r-i : .c N r CO N U') r r r r , 07 r CV O I c') (O M Ln r r r IT LO l(') N O Q O Page 79 of 252 1Of) - Report No. CSI 2011 -01, Donna Hewit... Page 80 of 252 0 O cz 3 U E 06 0 a) O O O ca U a) C -6 C Q C O a) C m i a) a) C '5 c o c- :3 C fn ca 0 Z CO = a) a) CU C O cu W O C CU ca O p C 3 U C c ca 0 a) U a) Q C i O - -p a _0 cC L O >+ N O vi a) CO O U in a) C U a L C0 U N (� — O a) ; C U L Q O O O .L Q O L a) in 6 - Q L E CL "0 W C 0) C C C O 3 O O a) U L O m� `� N (n 3 0 0 a) E Y P 7 m N .= a) a) y U S C (D O ns C H E L a) 0 �, Q cis Q Q C -U O L m O> U U O O C O) C cu Y c� O Y i O O > L > > U a) N 'a O cz a) a) � C U U >, cc �+ CL • 0 L N O O O (n O ,«- > 0 U O V7 i C a O O c C c� > C � A tq fA 0= a) 0 C 0- V) c C t>) O �") cd CL 7 7 a) a) O u '� 6 E U Q E -- C O O> L O a) U) a) > O (n a) (d to U L i tx .�� O > c a E m - O (b :E �' ca L 'N E� "O m � C fC �� 'ca > O `+--. Qi (if U O fl. L C (D 3 L w O U O 'ca O (0 C O CA U O C C a) {% C a) O E 0 N = O O E 6 CL C C C c 0 a) E O i N L -p a, >, O N O c E cif O 0 a) F- O V x o O O O _ O a) O C rn Q L O .E O U) Q� 7 'p O O W N 00 Q O O C EO U C 7 O L O «i c U C ca U a) L U > CL G. O' E C i O - U5 O — — O CL a O C O O �- C O O a) C a) O O I- 0 O Q N �O (D > E O co N p Z. L a) O a) O a) 3 (0 a 3 m s E »- O E 'E 3 E ri) a) o 0 1- C 0 O L O a) _ U) E L U N cn :3 U C x m - OL s 0 a) 0 Q U E O .0) aa)) C V O O 0 >1 p c CD O E 0) E C i O C i C_ C Q .Q Q iZ uJ - � .., im 0 f1.- 0 -C a)) > - j 0 U N "C) (a O O U O C i a) 0 O 0 O L O a) ca co E cry O a) . E E c 0 O C O p cif C c a) U w- O id a) O Q) U C 7 a E O m e U a) 0) 0) c ca a) .. a a) w ca m 0) .. O O > 3 C E 7 Z 0) ca O E C O O a) a) U �► N CU +' N O U "> O _� c� N d p O N U co E N N- > a� a) > a) a) C > a) O C a. a) U E > O QE > > ( � N 0 0 0 0) a) C !Z U W o O 00 W C a) W v a) 0 O U0: O a) C 0 (D O U y r2 i y r.. N � Z N N 00 T U) (0 In 00 a ) O . W V 0 (f") Ln z L T T T vi M V O 0 Page 80 of 252 10g) - Report No. CSI 2011 -02, Donna Hewit... Township o REPORT Proud Heritage, Exciting Future Report No. To: Prepared By: Donna Hewitt, Director of CSI 2011 -02 Council Corporate & Strategic Initiatives Meeting Date: Subject: Motion # February 9, 2011 Economic Development Plan Roll #: R.M.S. File #: RECOMMENDATION(S): Requires Action XX For Information Only It is recommended: 1. THAT Report No. CSI 2011 -02 be received and adopted; 2. AND THAT Ms. Cheryl Govier, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs be notified of Council's decision. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS: Economic Development Plan: During the previous term of Council, Tourism and Economic Development was established as a strategic priority and designated that municipal staff time be dedicated to this role through the creation of the Director of Corporate & Strategic Initiatives (CSI) position with this position filled July 5 ", 2010. Further, in September 2009 Council endorsed staff report (CAO 2009 -011) which initiated a community consultation process designed to culminate in the development of an Economic Development Plan for the Township. This Economic Development Plan was to be completed with the assistance of staff from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and the Ministry of Tourism (MOT). The completion of the Economic Development Plan has included four stages of community consultation to date which saw input from over 160 residents, businesses and stakeholders: 1. In January of 2010, Ms. Cheryl Govier, (OMAFRA) and Ms. Christine Anderson, (MOT) facilitated two Asset Mapping /Visioning exercises to solicit the community's input with respect to our Township's Assets, and our Challenges and the identification of what our community needs to do CSI Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Report No CSI 2011 -02 Page 1 of 3 Page 81 of 252 10g) - Report No. CSI 2011 -02, Donna Hewit... to capitalize on these assets while addressing our challenges. A number of common themes were identified; 2. This community consultation process was augmented with an on -line survey process which validated the results of the community meetings; 3. OMAFRA and MOT staff facilitated a second set of community meetings in June 2010 to identify potential objectives for inclusion in Action Plans; 4. And finally, to ensure a cross section of businesses and Township -wide feedback was obtained, personal interviews were also completed with an additional 15 businesses during August and September 2010. Economic Development Goals: The information gathered during this process was collated and analyzed by Ministry staff. Eleven potential themes /goals were identified and presented to Council in early January for prioritizing. The results of Council deliberation are contained in the following table: Next Steps: The following outlines the next steps in the completion of the Economic Development Plan: 1. Ms. Cheryl Govier, with OMAFRA will facilitate the Economic Development Roundtable in the development of Action Plans designed to move forward the Goals as outlined above. These plans will be reflective of the actions identified by the community during the consultation process and will outline proposed timing, resources required to implement, and potential partners in implementation. Once complete, the Action Plans will be presented to Council for their endorsement; 2. Municipal staff will then meet with community stakeholders and other business servicing organizations to present and review with them the approved plan and solicit their feedback and commitment to specific project implementation goals. This would include: Oro - Medonte Chamber of Commerce; Community Development Corp.; County of Simcoe — Tourism and Economic Development; Simcoe Muskoka Workforce Development Board; Ontario's Lake Country; Orillia Manufacturer's Association; Lake Simcoe Regional Airport etc. Report No CSI 2011 -02 Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Page 82 of 252 Economic Development Goals — Township of Oro - Medonte 1. Develop business retention & expansion strategies for the Township. 2. Support the airport and related development. 3. Develop & implement a communication strategy between businesses, residents and Council specific to economic development activities. 4. Share economic development responsibility & successes with partner organizations & neighbouring Municipalities. 5. Develop business attraction strategies for the Township. 6. Develop a tourism specific plan as a component within the Economic Development Plan 7. Develop and implement a plan to engage, support and develop the agricultural sector. 8. Support the development of new tourism products. 9. Develop and implement a plan to engage the arts & culture sector. 10. Develop and implement a plan to engage the aggregate sector. 11. Develop and implement a Township beautification plan. Next Steps: The following outlines the next steps in the completion of the Economic Development Plan: 1. Ms. Cheryl Govier, with OMAFRA will facilitate the Economic Development Roundtable in the development of Action Plans designed to move forward the Goals as outlined above. These plans will be reflective of the actions identified by the community during the consultation process and will outline proposed timing, resources required to implement, and potential partners in implementation. Once complete, the Action Plans will be presented to Council for their endorsement; 2. Municipal staff will then meet with community stakeholders and other business servicing organizations to present and review with them the approved plan and solicit their feedback and commitment to specific project implementation goals. This would include: Oro - Medonte Chamber of Commerce; Community Development Corp.; County of Simcoe — Tourism and Economic Development; Simcoe Muskoka Workforce Development Board; Ontario's Lake Country; Orillia Manufacturer's Association; Lake Simcoe Regional Airport etc. Report No CSI 2011 -02 Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Page 82 of 252 10g) - Report No. CSI 2011 -02, Donna Hewit... FINANCIAL: n/a POLICIES /LEGISLATION: n/a CONSULTATIONS: CAO ATTACHMENTS: CONCLUSION: The process outlined above, enables the Township to leverage the expertise of the business community while developing partnerships that will ensure buy -in from both the businesses and stakeholders alike. The Economic Development Plan will form an integral component in the Township's Corporate Plan Respectfully submitted: Donna Hewitt Director Corporate & Strategic Initiatives C.A.O. Approval / Comments: _ CSI Report No CSI 2011 -02 Meeting Date February 9, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Page 83 of 252 ]]a)- Mayor H.S. Hughes, correspondence £. . � , � O ` � \ �` \»"H }\ }a q \ & § 7 `} g \ CO y, \. _ C) _ ~ 2 LA + /$ k 302 W _ / \� ƒ d % J / CD \ J '� J ;7 / \ \/ w CO A o d 2 \ I} % m E / » £ » ® � §f f ®E ® ~ 0 c 3 o S o ` 0 _± �\ k2 % R a C 2� CO ® n * R d ' a k E °/ $� % jf §f ƒE2 ?c) 7 ° J22 Q/ GJ aD :Q) 6 �9Ea §G 7 ®o 3 2 ± 'ƒ 2 §g \c %y� 7x� o� b» l t bJ & a F » w ± / Page 84 of 252 11a) - Mayor H.S. Hughes, correspondence f... Y CeQe�rha�' K �vMt ,� Please fax back registration form United Way to 705.726.4897 of Grealer Simcoe County by February 4 Please reserve: Ticket(s) x $25 =$ Table(s) of eight x $200 =$ I would like to sponsor United Way- funded agency guests: Ticket(s) x $25 =$ Table(s) of eight x $200 =$ Total Amount =$ Contact information: Payment information: ❑ Please invoice me Name ❑ Visa ❑ Mastercard Address Card # City Postal Code Expiry Date Phone Name on Card Email Signature Guest information: Please provide the names of your guests and indicate if a vegetarian entree is preferred. Name Vegetarian? (Please circle) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Please fax to 705.726.4897 by February 4th. We look forward to seeing you there! Page 85 of 252 12a) - Announcements of Interest to the Pu... NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE NO.1 PUBLIC COMMENTS INVITED y TOWNSHIP OF TAY TAY AREA WATER TREATMENT PLANT CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT- SCHEDULE C The Township of Tay is undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment to determine the preferred approach and design concept for providing additional treatment capacity in the Tay Area Water System in order to meet projected water demands associated with population growth. The preferred approach and design concept must increase the water treatment and pumping capacity from approximately 7,850 m /day to 8,150 m and must meet all current and foreseeable water quality requirements, meet environmental protection objectives, and be cost- effective. The study is being carried out in accordance with the planning and design process for a Schedule C project as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (October 2000, amended September 2007). A Public Information Open House is being held to provide an opportunity for the public to review the alternative solutions under consideration, and to provide input and comment. Representatives from the project engineering consultants, as well as from the Township of Tay, will present an overview of the project and answer questions. PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE NO.1 Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011 Time: 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (Presentation at 7:00 p -m.) Location: Township Office, Council Chamber 450 Park Street Victoria Harbour Written comments are invited and must be received by Monday, February 28, 2011 to be considered in the study. Comments and requests for information regarding this project should be submitted to: C. C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. Suzanne Troxler, M.Sc., P.Eng. Project Manager 115 Sandford Fleming Drive, Suite 200 Collingwood, Ontario, 1-9Y 5A6 Phone: (705) 444 -2565 ext. 285 Email: stroxlerla cctatham.com Point BsY Park - 3T Pon MM-i fIle1Ne p,ea nQ 12 or Township of Tay Nick Colucci, P. Eng. Director of Public Works 450 Park Street, PO Box 100 Victoria Harbour, ON, LOK 2A0 Phone: (705) 534-7248 Email: ncolucci(a tay.ca 12 TAY AREA WATER SYSTEM SERVICE AREA `Naubau5hene O t2 5"g— Bay Page 86 of 252 Com�ar S Menyrs � 3T i2 Shme CIS Fa, 12 M1l[41P63r: I t fIle1Ne p,ea nQ 12 or Township of Tay Nick Colucci, P. Eng. Director of Public Works 450 Park Street, PO Box 100 Victoria Harbour, ON, LOK 2A0 Phone: (705) 534-7248 Email: ncolucci(a tay.ca 12 TAY AREA WATER SYSTEM SERVICE AREA `Naubau5hene O t2 5"g— Bay Page 86 of 252 12a) - Announcements of Interest to the Pu... Page 87 of 252 � E ° o ° o � I ca I CD (6 0 0 r o CO 0 0 0 � o (D N N W L L LL LL E U 7 O C • C • C U 0 � o � E � E N o J U U O O (B L O LL O L O L I O o L O U L O • U C 7 a p U Z LU O (D Q H � O W E CO U z O U c o Q W � C LL � ca m 06 O (LS Y CO m � ca Y � U � d � � N (B Page 87 of 252 (6 ,O LL J Page 87 of 252 12b) - Minutes of Nottawasaga Valley Conse... SAG Zie NOTTAWASAGA VALLEY CONSERVATION AUTHORITY �{ °� BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 11/10 a2a,o 10 December, 2010 Tiffin Centre for Conservation —John L. Jose Environmental Learning Centre MINUTES PRESENT: Chair: Walter Benotto Town of Shelburne Vice Chair: Gord Montgomery Township of Mulmur Members: Rick Archdekin Town of Wasaga Beach Mary Brett Town of Adjala - Tosorontio Chris Carrier Town of Collingwood Daniel Davidson Town of Innisfil Terry Dowdall Township of Essa Tom Elliott Township of Springwater Debbie Fawcett Township of Melancthon Ron Henderson Township of Essa John McKean Town of the Blue Mountains Rick Milne Town of New Tecumseth Fred Nix Town of Mono Gerald Poisson City of Barrie Ron Simpson Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Joan Sutherland Town of New Tecumseth Barry Ward City of Barrie Stan Wells Town of Wasaga Beach (attended in place of C. Paterson) REGRETS: Orville Brown Township of Clearview Reg Cowan Township of Springwater Sonny Foley Town of Collingwood Harry Hughes Township of Oro - Medonte Brian Mullin Municipality of the Grey Highlands Cal Patterson Town of Wasaga Beach Bill Van Berkel Town of Innisfil Robert Walker Township of Clearview Percy Way Township of Amaranth STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Wilson. CAO /Secretary- Treasurer Susan Richards, Manager of Administration and Human Resources Byron Wesson, Director, Land Operations & Stewardship Services Glenn Switzer, Director of Engineering and Technical Services Barb Perrault, Senior Environmental Officer RECORDER: Laurie Barron, Executive Assistant Page 88 of 252 12b) - Minutes of Nottawasaga Valley Conse... BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES MEETING No: 11/10 10 December, 2010 Page 2 of 4 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Benotto called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. MOTION TO ADOPT AGENDA RES. #1 MOVED BY: Daniel Davidson SECONDED BY: Ron Simpson RESOLVED THAT: The Agenda for Board of Directors meeting 11/10 dated 10 December, 2010 be adopted. 3. PECUNIARY INTEREST DECLARATION None declared Carried; 4. MINUTES 4.1 Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting 10/10 dated 26 November, 2010. RES. #2 MOVED BY: Ron Simpson SECONDED BY: Daniel Davidson RESOLVED THAT: The Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting 10/10 dated 26 November, 2010 be approved. Carried; 5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES None noted STAFF REPORTS 6. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 6.1 Implementing the Planning Program Review RES. #3 MOVED BY: Fred Nix SECONDED BY: Joan Sutherland RESOLVED THAT: the short -term high priority actions, referenced in the staff report dated December 10 2010, be immediately implemented; and, THAT: the long -term high priority recommendations, as noted in the Dec. 10 staff report, that can be funded within the approved 2011 budget, be implemented upon budget approval; and, THAT: the draft 2011 -2013 Business Plan include the short -term and long -term high priority recommendations, to be implemented in 2011, as well as the proposed high priority recommendations for 2012 and 2013. Carried; Page 89 of 252 12b) - Minutes of Nottawasaga Valley Conse... BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES MEETING No: 11/10 10 December, 2010 Page 3 of 4 :] 4181:4Its] a 1:I :997_[e7k9 *] 0:8 If_ll Zra 9 N zr_v *I1:1 :I N 7.1 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Township of Oro - Medonte, Severn Sound Environmental Association (SSEA) and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) for the Severn Sound watershed lands — update report RES. #4 MOVED BY: Debbie Fawcett SECONDED BY: Joan Sutherland RESOLVED THAT: staff meet with Oro - Medonte and the SSEA to review the additional concerns raised by NVCA Board members as summarized in the report of the CAO /Secretary- Treasurer dated Dec 10/11; and, THAT: staff review the feasibility of implementing the recommended actions /solutions to these concerns as presented; and, THAT: staff report back to the Board of Directors regarding progress on this matter after consultation with the NVCA Solicitor. Carried: 7.2 NVCA Board of Directors Administration /Governance Policy FA -2 Discussion ensued regarding the composition of the Admin /HR Committee. The members agreed that an ad -hoc committee to establish the roles of the Past Chair, Chair and Vice Chair should be struck. NVCA board members Rick Milne, Ron Simpson and Joan Sutherland volunteered to sit on the ad -hoc committee and identify roles and responsibilities of the Admin /HR Committee to bring back to the Board for consideration. NVCA board member Ralph Hough questioned item 6.4 of the administration regulations with respect to in- camera procedures when coming out of in- camera discussions. Mr. Hough noted that the resolution should identify the topic discussed. This will be taken into consideration as staff amend the Administration Regulations for board consideration RES. #5 MOVED BY: Joan Sutherland SECONDED BY: Debbie Fawcett WHEREAS: The Board of Directors (BOD) approved a revised governance model for the NVCA at their meeting of November 26, 2010 recommending changes including dissolving the Executive Committee and Advisory Committees; and, WHEREAS: Staff has amended the Board of Directors Administration /Governance Policy, FA -2 to reflect those changes and are recommending further review by the BOD; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the Board of Directors review the amendments for approval in principle to be effective January 1, 2011; and, THAT: An Ad Hoc Committee of 3 Board members work with the CAO /Secretary- Treasurer to develop roles and responsibilities for the Chair and Vice - Chair(s), including honorarium recommendations; and, THAT: the Ad Hoc Committee bring the recommendations to the BOD's January 2011 meeting for review and inclusion in the policy. Carried; Page 90 of 252 12b) - Minutes of Nottawasaga Valley Conse... BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES MEETING No: 11/10 10 December, 2010 Page 4 of 4 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Draft NVCA Board meeting schedule for 2011 (on table) RES. #6 MOVED BY: Daniel Davidson SECONDED BY: Ron Simpson RESOLVED THAT: the draft 2011 NVCA Board of Directors meeting schedule be approved as presented. Carried; 9. NOTICE OF MOTION None noted. 10. CORRESPONDENCE a) Ministry of Natural Resources memorandum dated Nov 1/10 re: Ontario Regulation 97/04 of the Conservation Authorities Act. b) Ministry of the Environment dated Nov 8/10 re: response from I Smith, Director Source Protection to resident of Minesing regarding a request for grant funding to fix a septic that is outside of the eligible grant zones. c) Conservation Ontario email dated Nov 16/10 re: Regional Climate Change workshops coming up in February 2011. d) Ministry of Natural Resources dated Nov 22/10 re: Royal Assent of Bill 68, the Open for Business Act. e) NVCA Chair's letter sent to Mayor and Council of all member municipalities dated Nov 30/10 re: NVCA considers changes to governance model — request for two member municipal representation to consider reducing representation to 1 member. RES. #7 MOVED BY: John McKean SECONDED BY: Terry Dowdall RESOLVED THAT: Correspondence not specifically dealt be placed on filed. FUTURE MEETINGS Executive Committee Meeting — December 17/10 Board of Directors Annual General Meeting — January 28/11 Carried; /e\ 111,19111 N ki a 11011 ► 1911 I11 W&TOT11 Z191:11111 :1:Z61f 9:10 1 IQ ki VAJ11 1:I Q N 11 Q RES. #8 MOVED BY: John McKean SECONDED BY: Terry Dowdall RESOLVED THAT: this meeting adjourn at 11:25 a.m. to meet again at the call of the Chair. Carried; Walter Benotto, N.V.C.A. Chair Wayne R. Wilson, CAO /Secretary- Treasurer Dated this 28 day of January, 2010 Page 91 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... SARRIF PUSLIC = I LIBRARY MINUTES Board Meeting #10 -09 Thursday November 25, 2010 at 7:30PM Consumers Gas Boardroom PRESENT: C.Virgo (Chair), R. Duhamel (Vice Chair), S. Kastner, L. McClean, V. DeCecco,.A. Davis (Director), T. Latimer (Recorder) ABSENT: A. Prince, L. Strachan, J.Heran, M. Meads 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30pm 2. Confirmation of Agenda The agenda was confirmed 3. Conflict of Interest None declared. 4. Strategic Plan Susan Wright (Randolph Group) The most up to date Strategic Plan was presented with comments put forwards from the focus groups. Some changes were made and the strategic plan was approved as amended. #10 -39 MCCLEAN - KASTNER THAT the BPL adopt the 2011 -2015 strategic plan as revised. CARRIED 5. Capital Campaign Update Al on behalf of Chris updated the board that the campaign team hopes to reach their goal before the new branch open. The board indicated that some event should take place to wrap up the campaign when the goal is reached. 6. Minutes of Meeting 6.1 Minutes of Board Meeting #10 -08 dated Thursday October 28, 2010 #10 -40 KASTNER - DUHAMEL . THAT the Minutes of Board Meeting #10 -08 dated Thursday October 28, 2010 be adopted. CARRIED 62 In Camera Minutes of Board Meeting #10 -08 dated Thursday October 28, 2010 #10 -41 DECECCO - KASTNER Page 92 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... THAT the In Camera minutes of Board Meeting #10 -08 dated Thursday October 28, 2010 be adopted. CARRIED 6.3 e- Minutes of Electronic Board Discussion #10 -02 dated Mondav November 1, 2010 #10 -42 MCCLEAN - DECECCO THAT the e- Minutes of Electronic Board Discussion #10 -02 dated Monday November 1, 2010 be adopted. CARRIED 7. Business Arisingy None 8. Report of the Chair Deadline for applications is December 10` 9. Committee Reports 9.1 Financial Statement — October 2010 #10 -43 KASTNER - MCCLEAN THAT the expenses listed in the financial statements for October 2010 be approved. CARRIED 10. Director of Library Services Report October 2010 Seasonal gathering is December 3. Moore Packing has provided the library with free storage for books for the new branch. Catherine will send a card from the board. 11. Other Business 11.1 BLAM Presentation No discussion. 12. Committee Meeting Dates At the Call of the Chair 13. Date of Next Board Meeting Thursday December 16, 2010 at 7:30pm in the Consumers Gas Boardroom. 14. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:45pm CHAIR ,� DATE DATE Page 93 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... DIRECTOR'S REPORT December 16, 2010 for November 2010 PERSONNEL 1. November 5 the Director attended a meeting of Chief Executives of Public Urban Libraries in Toronto. 2. November 8` the Director and Business Officer met with City Finance to discuss the Library's 2011 Municipal Operating Grant Request and operating budget to better identify funding sources. 3. November 10 the Director and management staff met with City Facilities Manager to discuss renovations to the Library's circulation area to accommodate RFID technology. 4. November 1I' the Library celebrated Mary Colvin's 25 years with the Library. 5. November 15 the Director met with other Simcoe County public libraries to discuss the feasibility of a partnership to deliver the Human Book program in local area public libraries. 6. November 24 the Director participated in a long distance call with the Library's Labour Relations lawyer, Paul Wearing, to discuss two union policy grievances. 7. Adam Smircich, Seneca student placement, was at the Library during the month of November. 8. Elizabeth Bufton, United Way Library representative, met with Jon Babulic, CAO City of Barrie on November 9` to review the 2010 /2011United Way Campaign proposal. On the 10` she presented the United Way Campaign proposal to the Senior Executive Management team at City Hall. November 15' , Elizabeth organized and spoke at the United Way Kick -off held at City Hall and at the Operation Centre on November 23 Elizabeth also chaired 3 United Way meetings on November P, 18 and 25 th . 9. Our sympathies go to Cindy Pomeroy- White, on bereavement leave due to the loss of her husband. Sympathies also to Ruby Meijers, on bereavement leave due to the passing of her mother -in -law. 10. Two new pages, Alyssa Buttineau and Adriane Matheson- Smith, were hired in November to replace two pages who resigned. 11. Karen Hanson joined the Technical Services department November 29th, 2010; replacing Linda Beazley who retired. II INFORMATION SERVICES Adult Information Services 1. Adult Information Services continued to order for the downtown library and the Painswick branch during November placing over $200,000 in orders during October and November. 2. Patricia Roebuck continued to add to the French collection with new material from recommended reading lists such as Every Child Ready to Read. 3. Robyn Zuck met with David Lubin, EBSCO, to address the changes in the Library's electronic database subscriptions that occurred as a result of provincial funding changes with Southern Ontario Library Services (SOLS), Chief Executive of Large Public Libraries of Ontario (CELPLO) and Knowledge Ontario (KO). Page 94 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... 4. Lynn Houghman and Ayla Demiray added 221 donated items to the collection in November. 5. In addition to "Ask a Librarian" the Library continues to participate in Knowled Ontario's "ASK -ON" project with Alison Brumwell, Patricia Roebuck, Ayla Demiray and Elizabeth Bufton taking shifts to provide service. Robyn Zuck is participating on a task force to evaluate and improve AskOn services. 6. Elizabeth Bufton created 2 displays on the main floor of the Library: "Remembrance Day @ Your Library" "History: Past, Present, Future @ Your Library" 7. Mary McAlpine created two more: "Books that Cook @ Your Library" "Great Canadian Fiction @ Your Library" 8. Elizabeth Bufton created a Remembrance Display in the Front Display case. 9. Business Librarian, Anne Dorsey, continues to respond to numerous business requests for information from the Library's PC Consensus and Million Dollar Data Bases. 10. Information Barrie distributed 1376 brochures including Newcomer Information Packages in November. 11. Shonna Froebel attended the International Festival of Ontario Authors event and dinner with the authors November 3 The Library is a co- sponsor with Georgian College. 12. Shonna attended 3 Business Networking International (BNI) meetings in November. 13. Shonna continued to work with the Ontario Library Association (OLA) Evergreen committee to plan for Superconference and the shortlist for 2011. She is also liaising with the 2010 winning author and working on the public announcement. 14. Patricia Roebuck submitted a bilingual piece on the French collections and services for the Library Newsletter. 15. Janet Graham hosted the 4` regional seniors brainstorming meeting. 16. Janet Graham also responded to an e -mail request from Newmarket Public Library Community Services about our "Around the World in 60 Minutes" travel programs. Newmarket is looking to set up a similar program. 17. Janet provided her monthly book review for Focus 50+ community seniors' paper and delivered a talk to a group of homebound seniors. 18. Janet and Mary prepared a program for the Holly Community Centre that included showing a Remembrance Day film and a handout on Christmas book giving. 19. Janet Graham and Elizabeth Bufton provided materials for 14 Nursing/Retirement Homes in November. 20. November 2 Anne Dorsey presented a Social Media for Non - Profits session for the Simcoe County Association for the Physically Disabled, 21. Anne attended the Chamber Business Networking Breakfast on November 4` and Oro - Medonte Chamber of Commerce BA5 on November 9th as well as the Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce Board meeting on November 16` 22. Anne presented a PCensus information session for Liaison College on November 24` 23. Anne attended the Women in Networking Going Strong (WINGS) breakfast meeting on November 24 24. Anne attended the Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce Business Awards on November 25` 25. Anne set -up a display and attended "Government Services and You," sponsored by Industry Canada on November 20` Page 95 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... 26. In November, Adult Information Services staff delivered 29 programs including electronic information, tours, book clubs travel and history, business and outreach programs to 341 attendees. 27. Shonna Froebel attended two Painswick Branch site meetings in November. 28. Robyn Zuck in discussions with Technical Services staff, Laurie Wright, Andrew Rogers and Khuan Seow are looking at a pilot to introduce e- readers. Kobo, Sony. Kindle and Pandigital are being considered. The plan is to download a number of popular books so staff can become familiar with the process and assess the potential for this new format. Robyn is becoming familiar with the Pandigital reader as it is fully compatible with the "Libraries on the Go" ebooks. 29. Patricia Roebuck, Mary McAlpine and Laura Lafleshe have become involved in the testing of the new public catalogue interface, Bibliocommons, with Library Technical Services Staff. Children and Youth Service 1. November 18, Vicki Nicholls met with Jane Salmon to refine the Storytime Resources project that Vicki has been working on for all children's staff to use. Early literacy skills are now linked to books sorted by themes. 2. Vicki Nicholls received her certificate from the University of Waterloo Photoshop course. 3. Laura LaFleshe participated in an online tutorial of "Snag It" in preparation for the evaluation of Bibliocommons in November. 4. Debra Smith added 10 donated items to the young adult and junior non- fiction collections and Nancy Woods added 38 donations to the children's collection. 5. In preparation for the implementation of the new RFID security circulation system, the weeding of the junior collection has been intensified. 6. In November, Youth and Children's staff received two Requests for Review of Materials. One was for the book "Outside Over There" by Maurice Sendak as the patron objected to the goblins and the portrayal of incompetent parents. The other was for the movie, "The Great Mouse Detective" because some scenes contained smoking, sexuality and bars. Several staff reviewed the material, responded to the patron's concerns but did not remove the material from the collection. 7. 16 Storytime Kits were circulated in November. 8. In November, Youth and Children's Services staff, Debra Smith, Laura LaFleshe and Jane Salmon continued to order new material for the Downtown branch as well as the Painswick Branch. 9. Debra Smith, Laura LaFleshe and Ruby Meijers continued to provide AskON reference coverage as part of the Knowledge Ontario project. 10. "Library on the Loose" Fall sessions at Zehrs and Holly ended in November. Holly Community Centre Storytimes continued to get great attendance, with an average of 57 each week. Zehrs also had good attendance, with an average of 49 each storytime. 11. On November 5, Patricia Roebuck presented a short session on Library materials in French to 15 people in the French Early Years program. 12. Laura LaFleshe put two book blocks together for Barrie Municipal Housing. 13. In November, Jane Salmon, Julie Ross, and Chris Vanderkruys worked on organizing Strategic Plan focus groups. 14. Jane Salmon finalized arrangements with Lakehead University to present with the Simcoe County District School Board Teacher- librarians to Education Students at the Page 96 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... Orillia Campus in January 2011. This invitation resulted from the Library's offering Education students a place to run a learning program for homeschoolers last winter. 15. On November 8, Brenda Jarvis and Cindy Pomeroy -White met the staff at the Toronto Public Library (TPL) Central Branch who produce TPL's Young Voice teen magazine. The Library plans to replace the Creative Arts Contest with an online teen magazine featuring writing, photography and artwork from community teens using the new "In Design" software. 16. November 15, Brenda Jarvis led a tour for a group of 14 Beavers. 17. November 17, Ruby Meijers represented the Library at the Welcome Wagon Baby Shower. She prepared a display and spoke with new parents and people on general about what the library has to offer. Many were interested in the Baby Goose program. 18. November 18` Laura LaFleshe led a Brownie tour for 19 people. 19. November 18` Jane Salmon prepared a library display for W.C. Little Elementary School's Book Fair evening. The Teacher- Librarian had set up Internet access to the Library website enabling Jane to show several people features like Kid Zone, E -Books and online resources. Jane spoke to around 40 parents about Iibrary services and several mentioned that there should be a branch in the southwest end of Barrie. 20. November 22 Jane Salmon attended a teleconference meeting of the OLA Child and Youth Services Committee. 21. November 24` Jane Salmon attended a Simcoe County Best Start meeting. 22. November 25` Jane Salmon chaired an Ontario Library Association (OLA) Best Bets meeting. 23. Ruby Meijers and Kym McOuat led tours for Kindergarten students from Cundles Heights on November 29 and November 30. 24. November 30 Jane Salmon attended a meeting of the Road to Reading Fun Fair committee to start planning for 2011. 25. Kym McOuat delivered a presentation at Frontier College Conference as requested by Frontier College. 26. Kym McOuat responded to her first request for further information regarding the DeweyCaching article published in the September issue of Feliciter. 27. In November, Youth and Children's Services delivered 66 programs including storytimes, circle of readers, outreach, tours and teen programs to 1847 participants. 28. A test program, Lego Club, led by Ruby Meijers, finished in November and was a resounding success. The goal to attract boys to the library was definitely met. Many parents expressed appreciation of the program One mother said that her autistic son benefitted so much from being in the club that she was taking vacation time every week just so he could come. She believed the tactile component of Lego building made it easier for her son to sit still and do his homework in the evening. Another parent of an autistic child loves seeing her son interact with other children during the program. The interaction, sharing of ideas, working together to build something is very beneficial to children. 29. Laura LaFleshe and Jane Salmon reworked a puppet show script in preparation for an upcoming Holiday performance. 30. On November 18, Debra Smith hosted an author visit from Lesley Livingston in the young adult area. The Teen Book Club had read Livingston's novel, "Wondrous Strange." III CIRCULATION SERVICES Page 97 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... 1. During November, 13 Nursing homes and 72 Visiting Library deliveries were made using 49 Volunteer hours. 2. The acting Manager of Circulation is continues to collect information from the staff in the circulation department on processes with the intention of reviewing procedures to streamline the workings of the department. This is also being done in anticipation of a multi branch system. 3. Comments received by circulation staff from patrons: - What a great place the library is - The e -mail notification is terrific - Positive comments regarding our computer service 4. Heather Betz met with the Page Coordinator and the Manager of Volunteer resources to discuss the roles of pages and the roles of volunteers. IV INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 1. In November, Freida Lund updated the mapping rules for Bibliocommons to accommodate our cataloguing records prior to testing. 2. Andrew Rogers completed the monthly shelving usage report that will indicate, by collection code, how many linear feet needs to be allocated by low or non - circulating items at the Painswick branch. Andrew also put an automated email notification program in place for unsuccessful day end processing in Horizon. He also found time to update the production server for the next round of Bibliocommons testing. Andrew is also preparing to update the Horizon database for local 10 -digit calling and the use of PIN for access to our OPAC next year. 3. Barb Romeo has started to work with the online l LLO requests generated by the information services staff. All requests are now completed online; either directly into the VDX system from Southern Ontario Library Services (SOLS) or into our automated tracking system. 4. Melinda Walley has been able to meet the challenge of ordering and processing all the new material being ordered for the Library. Melinda has been able to identify a number of errors being made by Library Service Centre (LSC) and Khuan Seow has initiated a dialogue with LSC on the Library's processing profile to better enable Library selectors to determine the processing profile selection. 5. Laurie Wright completed a number of tasks in November including the rollout of Snaglt and Camtasia software for staff. Other project related work included Bibliocommons and e- reader testing. Laurie is commended for her Ieadership in this area. 6. Freida Lund attended a second webinar on RDA — the new standard for cataloguing. 7. The Library's computer system encountered a problem for two days in November. A firewall issue was finally identified and fixed. 8. Bibliocommons testing started in November and some bugs have been reported. 9. Bibliotheca was selected to be the Library's RFID circulation security vendor. Tagging of the collection will commence in January. V COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Chris Vanderkruys continues to work on updating the Dragon Boat Festival website. 2. In November, Tracy Latimer attended the Dragon Boat Canada Annual Summit along with one of the Dragon Boat Festival committee members Page 98 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... 3. Chris Vanderkruys attended the monthly meeting of the Planned Giving Counsel of Simcoe County 4. In November, Chris attended the Doors Open Barrie wrap -up meeting at City hall. The Library has been invited to participate again in 2011. 5. Another Association of Fundraising Professionals Webconference was offered at the Library in November. This is offered to local area fundraisers on a cost recovery basis. 6. Chris attended the Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce Business awards gala along with Anne Dorsey in November. 7. November 2 Chris attended the International Festival of Authors (IFOA) Ontario with Anne Dorsey. 8. Chris created a new Remembrance display presenting over 60,000 names over three days leading up to Remembrance Day 9. The Barrie Folk Society's "Unplugged Saturday Night" on November 27 had approximately 32 people attend. 10. In November, Chris connected the camera on site at the new Painswick Branch Library. 11. The Capital Campaign Team is completing its last list of people to contact for "asks." 12. Chris attended two Association of Fundraising Professional (AFP) plenary sessions, "AFP Greater Toronto Chapter Philanthropy Awards" and "Various social media." Chris continues to assess how social media can be integrated into our stewardship and marketing efforts. VI VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 1. The Barrie Association of Volunteer Administrators (BAVA) held their November 10` meeting at the Woods Park Care Centre. The speaker was Pam Hillier from Community Connections in Collingwood and she spoke about adding a searchable online database of volunteer opportunities to the BAVA website. 2. On Friday November 5th Julie arranged a breakfast meeting for members of BAVA in recognition of International Volunteer Mangers Day. Julie also sent letters to the supervisors of BAVA members regarding the contribution of Volunteer Managers, a "dedicated group of individuals and agencies who are responsible for the coordination, support, training, administration and recruitment of the world's volunteers - skilled professionals who are adept at taking singular passion and turning it into effective action ". Julie met with the BAVA Executive on November 23 ra . 3. Julie attended a meeting of the Professional Administrators of Volunteer Resources — Ontario (PAVR -O) Conference Committee November 3 rd 4. Julie also prepared a mid -term evaluation for our high school co-op student, Jessica and several reference letters for volunteers. 5. Julie ordered customized Christmas ornaments for the volunteers, a per /notebook set and hand sanitizers that look like a pen to have on hand for volunteer gifts. 6. Julie sent a letter to the Editors of the Examiner and Advance regarding International Volunteer Day, for December 5 The letter was published in both papers. 7. In November, one new volunteer was hired and trained at the Caf6; one was hired and started as a shelf reader; one was interviewed for the winter session of Circle of Readers; and four were interviewed for shelf reading positions and will start in December. Page 99 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... 8. Julie helped organize and invite people to participate in a focus group for the Library's draft strategic plan. 9. Ten boxes of books were sent to the Central North Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene and twelve boxes of books were sent to Better World Books. 10. For the tenth consecutive year, Julie initiated the process of collecting items for the David Busby Street Centre from staff and volunteers. VII BUILDING 1. The front doors are repaired -both the handicapped access and the panic set on the middle door. 2. The Business Officer, with staff from the Technology Department, made site visits for RFID installations (Hamilton and Richmond Hill). 3. 7 Incident Reports were completed in November. 4. No additional needles were found in the "sharps" container in the main floor washrooms. PREPARED BY A. Davis DATE December 16, 2010 Page 100 of 252 12c) - Minutes of Barrie Public Library Bo... LIBRARY USAGE FOR THE MONTH OF: NOVEMBER 2010 SAME MTH CURB 273 PREY CURR 2,757 25.43% PREV YR MTH % +l- YTD YTD % +l- 1 CIRCULATION 4 MEMBERSHIP 2,215 2,199 - 0.72% 19,947 19,918 Adult 77,607 79,102 1.93 % 853,747 845,584 - 0.96% Children 51,339 49,625 - 3.34:% 576,074 591,995 2.78% TOTAL CIRCULATION 128,946 128,727 - 0.17% 1,429,821 1,437,579 0.54% 0.92% 5 INFORMATION REQUESTS 6,010 6,722 11.85% 62,139 2 HOLDS PLACED 12,874 11,539 - 10.37% 133,339 136,893 2.67% 3 INTERLIBRARY LOAN Borrowed 176 273 55.11% 2,198 2,757 25.43% Lent 222 287 29.28% 2,085 2,305 10.55% 4 MEMBERSHIP 2,215 2,199 - 0.72% 19,947 19,918 -0.15% New members 656 573 - 12.65% 6,929 6,594 -4.83% Active Members 56,356 55,681 - 1.20% 56,728 54,978 - 3.08% In Person Visits 46,289 43,450 - 6.13 %0 511,784 516,514 0.92% 5 INFORMATION REQUESTS 6,010 6,722 11.85% 62,139 62,095 - 0.07 %a a) Main Floor Information 2,988 3,067 2.64% 32,625 31,060 - 4.80% b) Second Floor Information 1,082 1,169 8.04% 12,926 12,624 - 2.34% TOTAL INFORMATION REQUESTS 4,070 4,236 4.08 % 45,551 43,684 - 4.10 % Collection size 261,624 264,148 0.96% 260,158 263,462 1.27% 6 ON -LINE DATA BASE SEARCHES 24,578 11,577 - 52.90% 126,027 122,507 - 2.79% 7 COMMUNITY INFORMATION a) Database records created 4 10 150.00% 164 87 - 46.95% b) Database records updated 167 191 14.37% 2,123 1,858 - 12.48% a) Events records created 100 149 49.00% 1,425 1,357 -4.77% b) Events records updated 93 101 860% 1,061 1,092 2.92% 8 COMMUNITY SERVICES Programs & Tours a) Adult 29 29 0.00% 258 231 - 10.47% b) Children/Young Adult 80 67 - 16.25% 543 591 8.84% TOTAL PROGRAMS 109 96 - 11.93% 801 822 2.62 %0 Attendance a) Adult 248 341 37.50% 2,579 2,388 - 7.41 % b) Children/Young Adult 1,967 1,858 - 5.54% 17,368 17,530 0.93 %a TOTALATTENDANCE 2,215 2,199 - 0.72% 19,947 19,918 -0.15% VISITS TO LIBRARY WEBSITE 9 (remote and in house) 196,995 171,683 - 12.85% 1,995,102 1,978,369 -0.84% 10 COMPUTER RESERVATIONS 6,010 6,722 11.85% 62,139 62,095 - 0.07 %a 11 NEW ITEMS a) Adult 1,936 5357 176.70% 15,620 19,097 22.26 %0 b) Children/Young Adult 1,143 6202 442.61% 12,983 16,951 30.56% Collection size 261,624 264,148 0.96% 260,158 263,462 1.27% 12 VOLUNTEER HOURS 933.3 929.75 -0.38% 8,950 9,885 10.46% 13 ROOM BOOKINGS 167 168 0.60% 1,585 1,513 - 4.54% Page 101 of 252 12d) - Minutes of Midland Public Library B... MIDLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MEETING DATE: December 9, 2010 PRESENT: A. Campbell, V J Swick REGRETS: R. Hackney, J. STAFF: G. Griffith, Recordi ITEM 1. 1 Call to Order JAN 31 2011 MEDONTE (RigpdIF Page 1 of 5 LOCATION: Cathy Moore's Home Barycky, G.A. Walker, V. Nihill, P. File, B. Desroches, C. Moore, LeFebvre GUEST: Councillor, G. Canning ng Secretary, B. Molesworth, CEO ISSUE I ACTION G.A. Walker called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. Approval of the agenda Moved by: V. Barycky Seconded by: V. Nihill That the agenda be approved as circulated. 3. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting Moved by: B. Desroches Seconded by: C. Moore That the minutes of the Board meeting held on November 4, 2010 be approved. 4. Business arising from the minutes 4.1 Dr. Laurin /Mr. Green B. Molesworth received a call from Dr. Laurin. He said the letter and proposal was fine with him. He thinks he will be replacing his roof in 2012. He stated that he has no problem with people looking at his roof (in order to obtain two more quotes). 4.2 Non - Resident Fees B. Molesworth spoke with the Treasurer of the Township of Tiny as to the status of the letter that was sent regarding increases to non - resident fees. He told B. Molesworth that copies of the letter were circulated to all members of Council. He is waiting for the first meeting of the new Council to have it discussed. He will recommend acceptance of the new fee structure. We set a new per household registration record for Tiny of 822 for 2010. CARRIED CARRIED Page 102 of 252 12d) - Minutes of Midland Public Library B... MIDLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MEETING DATE: December 9, 2010 LOCATION: Cathy Moore's Home Page 2 of 5 ITEM ISSUE ACTION 4. Business arising from the minutes - continued 4.3 Partnership with MARC — Literacy Program B. Molesworth updated the Board on the timing for launching this programme. MARC has now hired a new person to replace the co- ordinator that left their employ. They also have a new volunteer who is enthusiastic about helping. As it will take a little while for the new people to get up to speed the launch has been pushed back to March, possibly during March break. There has also been a change in the format. Instead of holding one session a month with follow -up literacy help after the session, it was decided the programmes would be held in a more compressed time period. After the one during March break, three or four different programmes would be held every other week. It was also agreed that instead of trying to create our own kits of literature for the attendees that we ask the presenters to supply informational packages that they might normally use. The lead -off session will be put on by the U of T Astronomy Department. The same programme would be hosted here and at the Penetanguishene Public Library. 4.4 Budget 201'1 B. Molesworth attended a meeting of the new Council on Tuesday evening regarding the 2011 budget. After looking at and voting on several different percentage targets, it was agreed that the new target will be between 2% and 3 %. We had originally submitted a budget with an increase of 1.7 %. After discussions with the Town Treasurer, who factored in payroll increases due to step increases for new Staff and a rise in the cost of benefits and the inclusion of a new 28 hour part -time position, our increase is now in the range of 7.2 %. There is another meeting next week for Council to do more work on the 2011 budget, so we won't know about new positions until after that meeting. Page 103 of 252 12d) - Minutes of Midland Public Library B... MIDLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MEETING DATE: December 9, 2010 LOCATION: Cathy Moore's Home Page 3of5 ITEM ISSUE ACTION 5. Approval of the accounts The Hydro bill for November is at a more reasonable amount but we don't use as much in the winter as we move over to gas for heating. Moved by: A. Campbell Seconded by: B. Desroches That the accounts for the month of November 2010 totalling $42,096.38 be approved. 6 Reports of Board Committees 6.1 Finance Committee Finance Chairman, A. Campbell distributed the Library Financial Statement for the eleven months ending November 30, 2010. C. Moore asked about the revenue only being at 62.07% B. Molesworth explained that there are two amounts of revenue still to be received. One is the Provincial Ministry grant, which may not come until the New Year and the other is the final quarterly payment from the Township of Tiny. The Township cheque should be received soon. These two cheques will total, approximately, $50,000.00 in revenue. The Finance report was adopted. 6.2 Fundraising committee — Letter B. Molesworth included this item in the Agenda to have it carried forward to the January meeting of the new Board. 6.3 Building Committee — Heating /Cooling B. Molesworth had a meeting with the controls people for the mechanical systems and now feels he has a better understanding of how it works. There will likely be more meetings as the need to clarify other issues arise. CARRIED Page 104 of 252 12d) - Minutes of Midland Public Library B... MIDLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MEETING DATE: December 9, 2010 LOCATION: Cathy Moore's Home Page 4 of 5 ITEM ISSUE ACTION 6. Reports of Board Committees - continued 6.4 Report from the Friends of the Midland Public Library — Book Store B. Molesworth reported on the progress with the new Book Store located in the lower level of the Library. There is a good roster of volunteers from our Friends group as well as MARC. Revenues are split evenly between MARC and the Friends of MPL. The Friends take for November was approximately $488.00. There is a pretty good rate of traffic and generally things are working out well. im New business B. Molesworth stated that he didn't have anything new at this time. Chairman, G. A. Walker thanked C. Moore for hosting the Board's Christmas meeting again. 8. 1 Information 8.1 Chief Librarian's Report C. Moore asked about the young people using the Library that B. Molesworth referred to in his report. "Are they hanging out or using the Library"? B. Molesworth has seen some of them reading. Traffic is certainly up in that area and we do want to promote the idea of the Library being a Civic space where people can come and meet. A question was asked about usage statistics for the self -check stations. B. Molesworth responded that overall circulation is around 20,000 a month. Close to 30% are being circulated through the self -check outs. Circulation has increased by approximately 30% and as much as the self - checks have helped, Staff still have to check in and shelve all those extra items being returned. P. File went on to thank G.A. Walker and the Board for her wonderful experience being involved with the Board at such an exciting time. Page 105 of 252 12d) - Minutes of Midland Public Library B... MIDLAND PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD MEETING Page 5 of 5 DATE: December 9, 2010 LOCATION: Cathy Moore's Home ITEM ISSUE I ACTION Presentations B. Molesworth made presentations to outgoing Board Chairman, G.A. Walker and Treasurer, A. Campbell. Both have served on the Board for over 12 years. 9. 1 Adjournment Moved by: J. Swick That the meeting be adjourned at 7:50 p.m. y of the Board Chief Librarian Page 106 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... Lake on Oe Region BOARD OF DIRECTORS' MEETING Con on NO. BOD -12 -10 -Friday, December 17 Authority , 2010 ority LSRCA Boardroom NEWMARKET, ON MINUTES Board Members Present Councillor V. Hackson, Chair Councillor S. Agnew Councillor G. Campbell Councillor B. Drew, Vice -Chair Councillor K. Ferdinands Regional Councillor J. Grant Mayor R. Grossi Regional Councillor H. Herrema Councillor B. Huson Councillor J. McCallum Councillor J. O'Donnell Councillor J. Rupke Deputy Mayor G. Wauchope Regrets: Mr. E. Bull Councillor E. MacEachern Councillor A. Nuttall Regional Councillor J. Taylor Mayor J. Young Mayor R. Stevens Staff Present D. G. Wood, Chief Administrative Officer R. Jarrett, General Manager, Communications & Education B. Kemp, General Manager, Conservation Lands J. Lee, General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services M. Walters, General Manager, Watershed Management R. Baldwin, Director, Planning & development Services G. Casey, Coordinator, BOD /CAO, Projects & Services Guests: Councillor A. Hill, City of Orillia D. Avery, Innisfil District Association M. Giampieiri, Geranium C. Shindruk, Geranium A. Stewart, Geranium I. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST None indicated for the record of this meeting. II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Moved by: B. Drew Seconded by: R. Grossi BOD- 160 -10 RESOLVED THAT the content of the Agenda for the December 17` 2010, meeting of the Board of Directors be approved as presented. CARRIED III. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES (a) Board of Directors Moved by: G. Wauchope Seconded by: J. Rupke BOD- 161 -10 RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD- 11-10 held on November 26` 2010, be approved as printed and circulated. CARRIED Page 107 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD -12 -10 December 17 2010 — Minutes Page 2 of 8 (b) Administrative Commitee Moved by: J. McCallum Seconded by: B. Drew BOD- 162 -10 RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Administrative Committee Meeting No. AC -08 -10 held on December 2 "d , 2010, be adopted and approved as printed and circulated; and FURTHER THAT the recommendations contained within the meeting minutes be approved as presented. CARRIED IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS (a) ESRI 2011 Calendar The CAO announced that, for a second time the LSRCA's Geographical Information System (GIS) is acknowledged by ESRI Canada in their 2011 calendar. The Lake Simcoe Watershed Report Card map reflecting natural heritage is highlighted for the month of May. The CAO extended congratulations to Geoff Peat, Manager, IT /GIS , Darren Campbell, GIS Coordinator and all members of the team for this accomplishment. (b) LSRCA Board Appointments In order to address some inquiries received related to the new Board appointments, the CAO clarified that the current Board of Directors will remain in place until the Authority's Annual General Meeting which will be held on January 28 2011. New Board appointees are made through Municipal /Regional Council Resolution and as a result, the Board stays in place until such time as the resolution from the municipality is received by the LSRCA. At this time, the Authority has not received any written notifications related to Board appointments. V. PRESENTATIONS No presentations were scheduled for this meeting. VI. HEARINGS There were no Hearings scheduled for this meeting. VII. DEPUTATIONS There were no Deputations scheduled for this meeting. VIII. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Items 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 were identified for separate discussion. Page 108 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD -12 -10 December 17 2010 — Minutes Page 3 of 8 IX. ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Moved by: G. Wauchope Seconded by: G. Campbell BOD- 163 -10 RESOLVED THAT the following recommendations respecting the matters listed as "Items Not Requiring Separate Discussion" be adopted as submitted to the Board and staff be authorized to take all necessary action required to give effect to same. CARRIED 2. Correspondence BOD- 164 -10 RESOLVED THAT the correspondence listed in the December 17` 2010 meeting agenda be received. 3. Monthly Communications Update BOD- 165 -10 RESOLVED THAT the Monthly Communications Update — Summary, for the period November 2010, be received for information. 7. Durham Region Forest —Standing Timber Sale Tender BOD- 166 -10 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 69- 10 -BOD detailing the record of tenders for Durham Region Forest Tender DRF- 001 -2010 be received for information; and FURTHER THAT tender DRF- 001 -2010 be awarded to Northern Pressure Treated Wood Ltd. 9. Draft Twinning Business Plan - 2011 -2015 BOD- 167 -10 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 72- 10 -BOD be received; and FURTHER THAT draft Twinning Business Plan 2011 -2015 be endorsed by the Authority's Board and forwarded to the International Riverfoundation for approval. X. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION 4. Budget Status Update The General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services provided an overview of Staff Report No. 66- 10 -BOD regarding the Authority's budget status for the eleven month period ending November 30 2010. Page 109 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD -12 -10 December 17 2010 — Minutes Page 4 of 8 Moved by: G. Wauchope Seconded by: B. Drew BOD- 168 -10 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 66- 10 -BOD regarding the Authority Budget Status for the eleven month period ending November 30` 2010, be received. CARRIED 5. Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Board dealt with and approved Staff Report No. 67- 10 -BOD regarding the proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and directed staff to include the Board's position on the Growth Act and Plan, which was put forward previously in a letter to the Province, with the comments on this amendment. Moved by: J. Grant Seconded by: B. Huson BOD- 169 -10 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 67- 10 -BOD regarding the proposed Amendment No.1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe be received; and FURTHER THAT the Chair and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to submit final comments on the Growth Plan Amendment No.1 to the Ministry of Infrastructure by January 31, 2011; and FURTHER THAT the Authority Board's previous position on the Growth Act and Plan be submitted as part of the Authority's comments on Proposed Amendment #1. CARRIED 6. Big Bay Point Resort Development —Town of Innisfil The CAO noted that representatives from Geranium Homes and from the Innisfil District Association are in attendance to hear the discussion on this matter. In addition, the CAO advised that that correspondence related to this issue was received the previous evening from both parties which will be distributed today for information. Staff will address the key issues and concerns of both parties during their presentation. The Director, Planning and Development Services, presented Staff Report No. 68- 10 -BOD which provided an update related to the Big Bay Point Development in the Town of Innisfil. The Board moved to Closed Session to review the legal opinion from the CAO as provided by the Authority's solicitor. Page 110 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD -12 -10 December 17 2010 — Minutes Page 5 of 8 Moved by: R. Grossi Seconded by: G. Wauchope BOD- 170 -10 RESOLVED THAT the Authority's Board of Directors move to Closed Session to receive a legal update; and FURTHER THAT the Authority's Executive Management Team and the Coordinator, Board /CAO, Projects and Services remain in the meeting for the discussion. CARRIED Moved by: J. McCallum Seconded by: J. O'Donnell BOD- 171 -10 RESOLVED THAT the Authority's Board rise from Closed Session. CARRIED The Director, Planning and Development Services advised that staff have reviewed all work related to this development to date and further that all work has been completed within the applicable Policies including Ontario Regulation 179/06. In addition, the Director advised that the Risk Management Assessment completed for this development site was sent to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for review. The LSRCA has since received correspondence from the DFO advising that they concur with the LSRCA's assessment. Moved by: G. Wauchope Seconded by: R. Grossi BOD- 172 -10 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report 68- 10 -BOD regarding the Big Bay Point Resort Development be received for information. CARRIED 1. Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation 179/06 This report includes the permit for marine work related to the Big Bay Point Resort Development. The following amended motion was put forward for consideration. Moved by: S. Agnew Seconded by: B. Huson BOD- 173 -10 RESOLVED THAT all permits identified in the report issued under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 179/06 be approved with the exception of the Big Bay Point — Marine Works which will be separated out for further discussion. MOTION DEFEATED Page 111 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD -12 -10 December 17 2010 — Minutes Page 6 of 8 Moved by: R. Grossi Seconded by: J. McCallum BOD- 174 -10 RESOLVED THAT applications under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 179/06 be received and approved. The Board requested a recorded vote on this motion. Results are as follows: S. Agnew Nay G. Campbell Yea B. Drew Yea K. Ferdinands Yea J. Grant Yea R. Grossi Yea V. Hackson Yea H. Herrema Yea B. Huson Nay J. McCallum Yea J. O'Donnell Yea G. Wauchope Yea J. Rupke Yea 11 In Favour 12 Opposed MOTION CARRIED 8. LSRCA Draft Strategic Plan — 2011 -2015 The CAO advised that the LSRCA develops an updated Strategic Plan for each term of Council and that the process has begun for the 2011 -2015 term. The Administrative Committee has been working with the Full Management Team to obtain input around the goals and objectives moving into 2011, which are part of Staff Report No. 70- 10 -BOD. Staff will work with the new Board beginning in February 2011 to finalize the Strategic Plan which will provide the framework for the Authority's Business Plan. Moved by: R. Grossi Seconded by: B. Drew BOD- 175 -10 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 70- 10 -BOD regarding the LSRCA's Draft Strategic Plan 2011 to 2015 be received; and FURTHER THAT the 2011 to 2015 Strategic Plan draft goals and objectives be adopted in principle for further consideration and approval by the Board of Directors in 2011. Page 112 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD -12 -10 December 17 2010 — Minutes Page 7 of 8 XI. CLOSED SESSION Moved by: G. Wauchope Seconded by: J. McCallum BOD- 176 -10 RESOLVED THAT the LSRCA's Board of Directors move to Closed Session to deal with confidential legal and human resource matters. FURTHER THAT the LSRCA's Executive Management Team and Coordinator Board /CAO remain in the meeting during the Closed Session Discussion. CARRIED Moved by: G. Wauchope Seconded by: J. Grant BOD- 177 -10 RESOLVED THAT the LSRCA's Board of Directors rise from Closed Session. CARRIED (a) Legal Status Update Moved by: H. Herrema Seconded by: J. Rupke BOD- 178 -10 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report 71- 10 -BOD regarding the Legal Services Status Report for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2010, be received for information. CARRIED VI. OTHER BUSINESS (a) Parting Comments Gord Wauchope advised that he will not be in attendance at the Annual General Meeting and therefore took the opportunity to extend his parting remarks. Gord advised it has been an honour to work with this Board of Directors and appreciated the opportunity to be part of the LSRCA. He further extended his congratulations to all staff for all of their hard work and accomplishments. Jack Rupke added that he has enjoyed working with the LSRCA's Board over the past seven years and will miss everyone. He commended staff for their great knowledge and for the wonderful work they are doing. Page 113 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors Meeting No. BOD -12 -10 December 17 2010 — Minutes Page 8 of 8 Sandy Agnew, also advised he will not be at the Annual General Meeting in January and extended his appreciation to everyone and expressed that it has been a great experience to be on the Authority's Board. Sandy acknowledged staff for the great work they are doing. Chair Hackson extended her thanks and appreciation to Gord and Sandy for their dedication and commitment to this Board and wished them much luck and success going forward. XII. ADJOURN Meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. on a motion by G. Wauchope. Original signed by: Original signed by: Councillor V. Hackson D. Gayle Wood, cmm III Chair Chief Administrative Officer Page 114 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... (Conservation Authority 2010 Business: Presentations: January 28 ", LSRCA 2010 Annual Report: • Chair Virginia Hackson presented an overview of the Authority's 2010 Annual Report highlighting the successes and accomplishments in Science and Research, Protection and Restoration, Education and Outreach and Program Support. Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation Update: • On behalf of the Foundation, Executive Director Cheryl Taylor shared a photo story presentation on the many highlights of the LSCF during 2010. With its many supporters and partners, the Foundation raised $540,000 in 2010 and disbursed approximately $300,000 to the Authority for environmental projects. • It was announced that the Annual Lake Simcoe Conservation Foundation Dinner will be held on Friday, May 13, 2011— mark this date in your calendar and plan to attend! Presentations to Outgoing Board Members: • The Chair, Vice Chair and CAO recognized and thanked the Board Members who will not be returning to the Board in 2011, for their years of support and dedication. Members were presented with a copy of the River Journey's II book which features the LSRCA as a winner of the International Riverprize in 2009. • Outgoing Board Members are: Sandy Agnew(Township of Oro - Medonte)* John Grant (Durham Region- Brock) Howie Herrema (Durham Region- Uxbridge) Barbara Huson(Town of New Tecumseth) Evelina MacEachern(York Region- Aurora)* John McCallum (Bradford West Gwillimbury) *Absent Councillor Alex Nuttall(City of Barrie)* Jack Rupke(York Region -King) Ron Stevens(City of Orillia — ex- officio)* Regional Councillor John Taylor(York- Newmarket) Gord Wauchope(Town of Innisfil)* James Young(York Region at Large) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket, ON BY 4X1 E -mail: info @Isrca.on.ca Web site: www.lsrca.on.ca Page 115 of 252 T Annual General Meeting 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... 2011 Business: Following a short break CAO, Gayle Wood, called the meeting to order and the 2011 Board of Directors took their places at the board table. Greetings: • On behalf of Lois Brown, MP, Newmarket - Aurora, Mr. Nathan Makarenko brought greetings and congratulated the LSRCA on their 60 Anniversary. • Gayle Wood took the opportunity to thank the Federal Government for the $30M in funding they have provided for the betterment of Lake Simcoe through the Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund, a program the LSRCA continues to participate in. • CAO Gayle Wood read greetings provided by and on behalf of Dr. Helena Jaczek, MPP, Oak Ridges- Markham and extended thanks to the Province for the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and for their ongoing support and partnership. • On behalf of Chair Bill Fisch, Regional Municipality of York, Mayor Rob Grossi (Town of Georgina) welcomed everyone to York Region and congratulated the LSRCA on their 60 Anniversary! Mayor Grossi extended a special welcome to the new Board Members and thanked the outgoing members for their commitment to the LSRCA. LSRCA Board Highlights— January 28, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Page 116 of 252 D. Gayle Wood, CAC, Regional Councillor John Taylor, Mayor Virginia Hackson, Chair, Jack Rupke, Barbara Huson, John Grant, Regional Councillor Bobbie Drew, Vice Chair, Howie Herrema, John McCallum, James Young. 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... • On behalf of Mayor Tony Van Bynen, Town of Newmarket, Regional Councillor John Taylor welcomed everyone to the Town of Newmarket, extending a special welcome to the newest Board Members. Regional Councillor Taylor acknowledged Chair Hackson for her leadership over the past several years and thanked her for all she has done in her role and, in addition, acknowledged the staff of the LSRCA for the exceptional work they do which is recognized both locally and internationally. Regional Councillor Taylor expressed his appreciation for having the opportunity to serve on this Board and, while he will not be returning, he will be maintaining a keen interest from the sidelines. • Gayle Wood thanked both Mayor Grossi and Regional Councillor Taylor for their kind comments and advised that the CA could not do their work without the strong support of all 23 municipalities; a partnership greatly valued by the CA. • Chair Dick Hibma, Conservation Ontario, the umbrella organization for all 36 conservation authorities in Ontario, took the opportunity to give special recognition and thanks to Mr. Peter Krause who was in attendance; Mr. Krause is the past Chair of Conservation Ontario and also past Chair of the Grand River Conservation Authority and was instrumental in moving conservation authorities through the Walkerton water tragedy and the initial stages of the provincial source water protection initiative. In addition, Chair Hibma welcomed the incoming board members noting the importance of their work and the importance of having the proper science, education, and a full understanding of the Authority's work in order to make the right decisions. Chair Hibma also advised that, as members of the LSRCA's Board, they are the advocates for the LSRCA both at the board table and in the community. Chair Hibma congratulated the LSRCA on their 60 year, and recognized the LSRCA as a leading edge Conservation Authority with their work being recognized and awarded internationally. Chair Hibma acknowledged Mayor Hackson for her efforts advising that she also serves as Vice Chair of Conservation Ontario recognizing Mayor Hackson as a great ambassador for both the LSRCA Board and Conservation Ontario. LSRCA Board Highlights— January 28, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Page 117 of 252 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... Presentations: Prior to introducing the guest speaker, CAO Gayle Wood acknowledged the following guests: • Mr. Peter Krause, past CEO, International Rive rfoundation(IRF) and Board Member of the IRF, • Ms. Anita Krause, Ambassador, International Riverfoundation, • Mr. Matthew Reddy, Chief Executive Officer, International Riverfoundation, • Mr. Johnny Sundstrom, The Siuslaw Institute, International Riverfoundation Alumni (2004 Winner). • Gayle Wood introduced the Guest Speaker, Prof. Gary Jones, Chairman, International Riverfoundation providing his biography which includes CEO of eWater Cooperative Research Centre and of eWater Limited and a Director of eWater Innovation Pty. Ltd. Prof. Jones was formerly a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK, and a Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellow at MIT in Boston, USA. In addition, he has authored over 100 scientific publications and has extensive experience in real -world environment and water management. • Prof. Jones presented on the International Riverfoundation, which awards the largest water prize in the world. There have been 13 winners since 1999, including the LSRCA in 2009 and the Grand River Conservation Authority in 2000. • Prof. Jones acknowledged the great work of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority identifying the LSRCA as leading edge in the work they are delivering. The conservation authority movement in Ontario is to be recognized and valued for the positive and important impact it is having on the environment. LSRCA Chair: Mayor Virginia Hackson, Town of East Gwillimbury, was re- elected to the position of Chair. This will be Chair Hackson's fifth term as Chair. LSRCA Vice - Chair. Regional Councillor Bobbie Drew, Township of Scugog, was re- elected to the position of Vice - Chair. This is Vice Chair Drew's fifth term as Vice Chair. LSRCA Board Highlights — January 28, 2QT1 Page 4 of 5 Page 118 of 252 Election of Officers - 2011 12e) - Minutes of Lake Simcoe Region Conse... 2011 Meeting Schedule: • The Board of Directors approved the 2011 Meeting Schedule of the Board and Lakes Simcoe and Couch iching /Black River Source Protection Authority. The calendar of the meetings can be found on the Authority's website at www.lsrca.on.ca Next Meeting Dates: • February 11 2011 — Board Orientation Session • February 25 2011 — Board of Directors Meeting Closing Remarks: • Chair Hackson concluded the meeting with some closing remarks of thanks and appreciation and unveiled the LSRCA's 60 Anniversary commemorative logo.... 0-OMPOPMPP 00P_ @2071 LSRCA Board Highlights— January 28, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Page 119 of 252 Pr oud Past Focused Futur 12f) - Correspondence dated January 25, 20... M cI PERRY nsulting Engineers Ltd. Helping shape better communities Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South Oro South Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Attention: Robin Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer kEU JAN 0 2011 _.Tfa WCkz_ January 25, 2011 Re: Detail Design for the Rehabilitation of Highway 400 from Simcoe Road 19 to North Junction of Hwy 12 /Simcoe Road 16 Northbound & Southbound, G.W.P. 2344 -09 -00 The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) has retained the services of McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers (MPCE) to carry out the detailed design for the pavement rehabilitation of Highway 400 from Simcoe Road 19 to north junction of Hwy 12 /Simcoe Road 16 northbound & southbound, for a total study area of 11.3 km. Attached please find a key map that indicates the location of this study area. The MTO is currently undertaking the detailed design phase of this project in order to carry out environmental services, and contract preparation for the rehabilitation of Highway 400 (G.W.P. 2344- 09 -00). The project will involve the rehabilitation of the existing pavement including main lanes, shoulders, interchange ramps, gore areas, and padding, and minor drainage improvements. It should be noted that the project will not include any road widening, and as such the existing riding platform and number of driving lanes will be maintained. The detailed design is following an approved planning process under the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities (2000) for a Group "C" project. This will include an assessment of potential impacts of the highway improvements on the study area environment, and address the concerns raised during the consultation process. An Environmental Screening Document will be prepared detailing the existing biophysical and socio- economic environment, summary of design features, potential impacts of the undertaking, required mitigation procedures, and commitments to future work. We would appreciate receiving any initial comments, information or suggestions that you may have regarding the rehabilitation of this highway by February 25, 2011. Please note that this project has a very tight deadline and therefore your immediate attention would be greatly appreciated. Your comments should be directed to: Mr. Denton Byers or Mr. Thampaiya Nanthakumaran, P.Eng 115 Walgreen Road, R.R.3 Carp, Ontario KOA ILO Tel.: 613.836.2184 fax: 613.836.3742 info @mcintoshperry.com www.mcintosliperry.com Page 120 of 252 12f) - Correspondence dated January 25, 20... 2 Senior Project Manager McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers 115 Walgreen Road Carp, ON KOA 1 LO Telephone: 613 - 836 -2184 Ext. 2222 Fax: 613-836-3742 E -mail: d.byers @mcintoshperry.com Project Manager Ministry of Transportation Highway Eng. Toronto & Durham Sec. 1201 Wilson Avenue, 4 Floor Bldg. D Downsview, ON M3M 1J8 Telephone: 416- 235 -3439 Fax: 416-235-4002 E -mail : T.Nanthakumaran @ontario. ca Lastly, we encourage you to contact the MTO or MPCE project team at any time if you have questions or concerns about this project. Thank you for your anticipated assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers, J ✓ Denton Byers Senior Project Manager CC. Mr. Thampaiya Nanthakumaran, P.Eng, MTO Project Manager Mr. Chris Copeland, MTO Environmental Planner Mr. Jeff King, MPCE Environmental Planner Page 121 of 252 ]2)- Correspondence dated January 25, 20. '� - Alk | ( Cd m \� F � 2 - 0 � t U / §\ G g _ z \ d J z \ S Q § � D e ®! w 2 \ § R w � { q : Page 122 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to _R"r—Mm courvrr of , S IMCOE County of Simcoe Office of the Warden 1110 Highway 26, Main Line (705) 726 9300 Toll Free 1 866 893 9300 S Fax (705) 725 1285 Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1X0 Web: simcoe.ca e4 January 28, 2011 Hon. Bob Chiarelli Minister of Infrastructure 5"' Floor, Mowat Block 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 RE: Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 Dear Minister Chiarelli: The County of Simcoe elected officials and Planning staff have given considerable thought to the Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 for the Simcoe Sub -Area and have consulted with our 16 partner municipalities to review what is proposed and how it may be implemented. We provide the following as comments on the proposed amendment for consideration by the Minister of Infrastructure prior to finalizing the proposed new legislation. The County of Simcoe remains of the opinion that an area- specific Growth Plan Amendment is not necessary for growth management purposes in Simcoe County. We believe that the policy framework proposed in our adopted County of Simcoe Official Plan dated November 25, 2008 is appropriate and can be further detailed in each of the 16 local municipal official plans to ensure wise land use planning decisions are made and making sure they are in conformity with the Growth Plan. The proposed Growth Plan Amendment for the Simcoe Sub -Area proposes a population and employment allocation (Schedule 7) to disaggregate the Schedule 3 numbers from the Growth Plan. The. Province, through this proposed Schedule 7, is allocating population and employment to the local level, and effectively taking that responsibility away from the County. Respectfully, we feel this is wrong. The Proposed Amendment goes further in suggesting that the Province will review these allocations at least every five years and may revise them as necessary. With respect, we question why the Province feels they must get involved in planning at the local level and to this detail. It restricts opportunities for economic development and innovative local planning and is unnecessary and inconsistent Provincial policy.. Furthermore, we are concerned that in many cases the proposed employment allocation is not in line with the proposed residential population which does not allow fora balanced live -work community. As we understand it, the Province feels compelled to have to introduce an Amendment for Simcoe County given an oversupply of designated lands for development many of these decisions were at the hands of the Province and we understand there are other upper tier municipalities with an oversupply. Why is Simcoe County being treated differently? Without the tools proposed by the Province in the proposed Amendment, it appears the Province believes the County and local municipalities cannot properly manage the growth to the allocated population. The main "tool" being introduced is the concept of an Interim Settlement Area Boundary (ISAB) to delineate the amount of land necessary to accommodate the 20 year forecast. The County did not ask for such a "tool nor were the County and the local municipalities given the opportunity to review the concept prior to the public release of the proposed amendment on October 28`h, 2010. Requiring the County to work with the local municipalities in establishing ISAB's on each Settlement Area according to the Land needs assessment will result in Page 123 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... some lands being effectively frozen to development and opportunity for what could be 20 years based on the population and employment allocations. The County is of the opinion that the establishment of ISAB's will bring about legal challenges against both the County and local municipalities that we are not prepared to defend. The County is very concerned about the prohibitive costs that will be involved in such an exercise. It is recognized that having to reflect the ISAB's in the County and local Official Plans will involve a complex scenario to deal with future proposed changes. As such if the ISAB is going to be required, then we ask that the requirement for including them in the County OP land use schedule be dropped, and only reflect them in the local OP's. The County and local municipalities have planned for infrastructure and upgrades based on population forecasts that were established before the Growth Plan Amendment was contemplated. In most cases Development Charges By -laws are in place that set the stage for the anticipated growth and infrastructure needs for a horizon beyond 20 years. In some cases infrastructure is in place, the repayment of which is based on anticipated growth and the collection of development charges. The introduction of a population cap is extremely limiting and detrimental in many cases as financed infrastructure must be planned well beyond a 20 year horizon. If the population forecasts are going to be reduced it could be a financial burden on municipalities that built infrastructure and had anticipated recouping the costs, through their Development Charges program. We strongly encourage that the numbers proposed be treated as forecasts have traditionally been; that they be used as a forecast not a cap, to allow for long -range planning and provide flexibility for responsible land use planning decisions. Capping numbers is not necessary. Other remedies exist if the Province is in disagreement. There is no evidence to suggest that even though lands are designated, that they will be built out within any given timeframe. Ultimately the consumer market will prevail. Another troubling aspect of the proposed Growth Plan Amendment is that there will be new Transition Regulations announced on the same day the Amendment comes into force. It has been explained to us that the intent is to capture everything by the Amendment except very minor matters. We respectfully request that you, Minister Chiarelli, release a draft of the proposed Transition Regulations and would further request that consideration be given to continuing with the existing O. Reg. 311/06 and that only new applications submitted following the effective date of any Amendment be caught by the new rules. Given the uncertainty of timing for the approval of the County Official Plan, we recommend that the Minister allow for conformity of the local official plans to be carried out within one year after the County Plan is in effect. When the County of Simcoe adopted its updated OP in November of 2008, it was done so that we would be in conformity with Provincial Policy. For 180 days the County was given no comments from the Province, except for the introduction of the Vision Plan that came out of nowhere. Then a further 6 months passed and in due course after having waited for a year for some decisions on our OP, the County chose to appeal the lack of decision. As part of the appeal, there was formal request from the County asking for the Office of the Provincial Development Facilitator to get involved to try to scope issues and hopefully mediate some solutions. Even with further requests for the same, we have never received any response to our requests. Instead a further 11 months went by before the Proposed Growth Plan Amendment was released for comment, without the courtesy of a briefing with the County to review the proposed approach before being released publicly. The lack of respect that has been shown to the County in the process is troublesome. We have been asking for dialogue, answers and for a decision on our OP. The indecision has caused significant negative impacts on our local economy and has artificially stalled growth which negatively impacts our economy, our growth related revenues, private investment in our region, our future growth forecasts and also the future of our existing communities-, schools, workforce and residents. We don't see how introducing an area specific County Comments on Proposed GP Amendment 1 Jan 28 2011 Page 124 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... amendment at this time is going to help, in fact it may further hinder the process of getting to an "in effect Plan" that starts to provide some certainty. The 16 local plans can then be brought into conformity. The significant delays in getting to an approved Plan have created a very challenging economic and planning environment for this entire region. If the Province will not appoint the Provincial Development Facilitator which remains our preference, then we respectfully request that a. Hearing Officer be appointed as allowed for under the Places To Grow Act. We believe it is imperative to allow for meaningful discussions between all affected parties prior to you, Minister Chiarelli, recommending that any amendment come into effect for the Simcoe Sub -Area. With respect, we feel that all issues could have been addressed and resolved without the need for vision papers and amendments had the Province engaged the County in fair and meaningful discussion. While we recognize the political elements here, and the difficulties caused by significant turnover in your Ministry, we maintain that our adopted County Official Plan warrants serious consideration for approval, and that an area - specific Growth Plan Amendment is not necessary nor welcomed as it undermines the councils and professional planning staff of both the County and local municipalities in managing growth and making professional land use planning recommendations. In conclusion, there is more the County and our member municipalities could add to this important process than a letter could articulate. It is not too late to engage in discussions towards a meaningful and effective solution — a local solution which is what your government asked us to do and what you have indicated you would prefer. Yours truly, Cal Patterson Warden, County of Simcoe c: Tija Dirks, Director — Ontario Growth Secretariat County Council members Local Municipalities County Comments on Proposed GP Amendment 1 Jan 26 2011 Page 125 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to C wwws g grinwater.ca ` Township of 2231 Nursery Road Springwater Minesing, Ontario LOL1Y2 Canada January 31, 2011 Hon. Bob Chiarelli Minister of Infrastructure Stn Floor, Mowat Block 900 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 1 C2 Hon. Rick Bartolucci Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing 17 Floor 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 Dear Ministers Chiarelli and Bartolucci: Subject: Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe On behalf of the Council of the Township of Springwater I wish to thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments on the proposed amendment. The Township understands the challenges faced by your Ministries and acknowledges the need for all affected municipalities to work with the Province and the County of Simcoe, within the guiding principles of the Growth Plan, to achieve complete communities within Simcoe County. While we desire to strive toward that commitment, we have the dilemma that the population Springwater has been allocated does not support the effective implementation of the guiding principles. Our key message to the Ministries is therefore that implementation of the amendment as written, will force the Township of Springwater to compromise the overarching principles of the provincial policy. We cannot overemphasize the focus on our key concern and have elaborated on same below. In addition we have noted supplemental concerns and requests. Challenges: The Proposed Amendment 1, as released fails to recognize some of the specific challenges that face the Township. The Township of Springwater has identified concerns with the revised Schedule 7 particularly the population and employment distribution forecasts, the establishment of the interim settlement area boundaries, and the transition policies of the Amendment. Phone: 705 - 728 -4784 Office of the Mayor Fax: 705 -728 -6957 Page 126 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to 2 Population and Employment allocations should not be capped in the Amendment. • Despite the request made by Springwater in September 2009, the Township was not allocated a further increase in population or employment allocations. • Current allocations fail to acknowledge the development potential in the Township within our primary settlement areas. • In light of the Township's recently approved Economic Development Strategy, the 600 jobs allocated falls short and will result in lost opportunity for employment and business development. Financial Impacts • Shortfall of jobs will result in lost investment opportunities. • Disagreements on the interim settlement area boundaries will result in OMB appeals resulting in litigation for the County, Township and developers. • If the Province moves forward with the proposed ISAB process they need to either provide Municipalities with funding to address OMB appeals or remove the OMB appeal option on all approved ISAB decisions. Amendment Fails to Achieve Complete Communities in Springwater • Although the distribution of the 5,900 population under the Amendment is yet to occur, the capped allocation will severely detract from the majority of growth occurring in primary settlement areas (Elmvale, Hillsdale and Midhurst) and result in growth occurring in secondary and tertiary settlement areas in the Township. The Amendment as presented effectively sterilizes development from potentially occurring in the primary settlement area of Midhurst for the next twenty years. Interim Settlement Area Boundaries • Evidently, no other communities in the GTA have been required to implement an Interim Settlement Area Boundary. The need for their application to Simcoe County is therefore questioned. • Minor boundary adjustments should be made with respect to an ISAB for lower -tier municipalities without the need for a full Official Plan Amendment or comprehensive review. Page 127 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to 3 Transition Regulations • Transition Regulations for the GPA should be provided for consultation and comment prior to it coming into effect. • It is being suggested that lower -tier Official Plan conformity exercise be required within a year after the County plan comes into effect. Hearing Officer: • Failing a response to our request for a Provincial Facilitator we ask that a Hearing Officer now be appointed to assist in finalizing outstanding issues on the Amendment as outlined. In summary we would like to reiterate that the proposed Amendment 1 fails to provide sufficient population allocation to the Township of Springwater to enable the Township to effectively implement the guiding principles of the Growth Plan. The Township of Springwater wishes to work towards being a community of complete communities but requires additional population to allow the growth to occur in the settlement areas that are most capable of accommodating growth. The Township is agreeable to work with the Ministry of Infrastructure and our neighbours to accomplish this and seek your guidance in resolving this very challenging situation. Sincerely, da Collins Mayor, Township of Springwater cc. Winanne Grant, CAO, Township of Springwater Tija Dirks, Director - Ontario Growth Secretariat Mark Aitken, CAO, County of Simcoe Bryan MacKell, Planning Director, County of Simcoe Page 128 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... The Corporation of the Town of Mailing Address: P.O. Box 910 New Tecumseth ^ ]lis ; °�° �`° L9R lAl PLANNING DEPARTMENT Administration Centre 10 Wellington St E. Alliston, Ontario Ms. Tija Dirks Director- Growth Policy, Planning and Analysis Branch Ministry of Infrastructure 4"' Floor, Suite 425 777 Bay Street, Toronto Ontario, M5G 2E5 January 27, 2011 Dear Ms. Dirks: Web Address: www.town.newtecumseth_on.ca Email: planning @town.newtecumseth.on.ca Phone: (705) 435 -3900 ext. 301 or (905) 729 -0057 Fax:(705)435 -0407 RE: Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Further to the release of the subject document by the Province and the related request for comments by January 31, 2011, on January 24, 2011 Council for the Town of New Tecumseth passed Council Resolution No. 2011 -003 in support of Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Additionally, the Town of New Tecumseth respectfully requests that Simcoe County lower -tier municipalities be granted at least one year to complete their Growth Plan conformity Official Plan Amendments after the new Simcoe County Official Plan is approved and in effect. We would also request that the Places to Grow Transition Regulation confirm that Planning Act applications with no Council approval be required to comply with the current Planning Act. We look forward to continuing to work with the Province in achieving the objectives of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Should you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at: 705 - 435 -3900, extension 237. Yours truly, Eric handler, MCIP, RPP M ager of Planning Attach. Cc. Bryan MacKell, Director of Planning- Simcoe County Page 129 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to The Corporation of the Town of New Tecumseth Moved by: Councillor Norcross Resolution No: 2011 -003 Seconded by: Councillor Whiteside Date: January 24, 2011 BE IT RESOLVED THAT Report #PD- 2011 -02 be received; AND FURTHER THAT Council directs staff to send a letter to the Ministry of Infrastructure in support of Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. CARRIED 1, Jan Heydon, Deputy Clerk, certify that this is a true and accurate reproduction of Resolution No. 2011 -003, passed by the Council of The Corporation of the Town of New Tecumseth, on January 24, 2011, Meeting No. 2011 -01. Jan Heydon Page 130 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF INNISFIL Ross cotton Manager of Planning Tel: (705) 436 -3710 ext 3301 (888) 436 -3710 Fax: (705) 436 -7120 ma Hon. Bob Chiarelli Minister of Infrastructure 5 th Floor, Mowat Block 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 1 C2 Hon. Rick Bartolucci Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 17 Floor 777 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Ontario Growth Secretariat Ministry of Infrastructure 4 th Floor, Suite 425 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 Sri Dear Ministers Chiarelli and Bartolucci and Director Tija Dirks: Re: The Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2101 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil, Ontario L9S 1A1 Web Site:www.innisfil.ca E -mail: rcofton @innisfil.ca January 31, 2011 This letter is in respect to the recently released Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan. The purpose of this letter is to provide the response of the Council of the Town of Innisfil. The details of the Town's Recommendations to the Province are contained in Staff Report DRS - 013-11 which was adopted by Town Council on January 26, 2011 by Council Resolution CR- 033 -11. Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 is attached to this letter. The Recommendations adopted by Council are as follows: "THAT Council acknowledge to the Ministry of Infrastructure receipt of the Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006; and THAT The Minister of Infrastructure be advised that the Council for the Town of Innisfil is concerned with the limited period for the review and response to the Proposed Amendment 1 given the transition to office by the new Council and the lack of time to fully understand the associated implications of the changes outlined in the Proposed Amendment 1; and THAT the Minister of Infrastructure consider extending the consultation period to February 28, 2011 to allow sufficient public and stakeholder engagement; and Infinite Opportunities Page 131 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to THAT the Minister of Infrastructure be advised that due to the constraints respecting the timelines for comment Council considered it necessary to have a limited consultation process which included a Roundtable discussion with local developers and builders and an Open House for the public to examine the significant implications this Amendment will have on the future local planning and development for the Town of Innisfil; and That despite the request by numerous municipalities and stakeholders to the Minister of Infrastructure for the appointment of a Hearing Officer as provided in the Section 7 of Places to Grow Act, 2005 to allow a more full -some discussion and review of potential changes to the Growth Plan and its implications for the Simcoe Area Municipalities, residents and stakeholders the Proposed Amendment 1 was released in October 2010 just prior to the Municipal Election limiting the level and extent of engagement; and Now Therefore the Minister of Infrastructure be requested to give consideration to the following for the purpose of further Amending the Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe: the: 1. Schedule 7 Distribution of Population and Employment (pg 12) That Schedule 7 be revised to indicate the population of Town of Innisfil to be 65,000 persons as per the County of Simcoe Official Plan as adopted in November 2008 and the Town's Growth Management Strategy (Official Plan Amendment 1 to the Town's Official Plan); and 2. Schedule 8 Simcoe Sub -area (pg 13) That Schedule 8 be amended to reflect that Alcona which is an urban Settlement area of currently 15,000 persons and planned for 32,000 persons be identified as an Urban Node; and That the Town support the principle of the identification of Innisfil Heights as the "Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area as marked with a triangle icon on Schedule 8. 3. Definitions (pg.11) That under Definitions (pg.11) that the definition of "Urban nodes" be amended to include "...and community of Alcona in the Town of Innisfil." 4. FIGURE 1 Proposed Boundary of Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area (pg 21) That FIGURE 1 be revised to provide that the geographic size of the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area be enlarged to reflect the boundary as shown on Attachment 5 (size in OPA 1) to this Report DSR- 012 -11 and to also including the K. Winter lands as designated in the existing approved Official Plan. 5. TABLE 1 Proposed Alternative Targets (pg 25) That TABLE 1 as related to the Town of Innisfil be amended to provide a Proposed Alternative Intensification Target of 23% in recognition that Innisfil does not have significant "brownfields" and significant older "Built Boundaries" Infinite Opportunities Page 132 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to as identified by the Province that can sustain the higher Intensification Targets as confirmed by an Intensification Study by Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Consultants; and That the Town support the Proposed Alternative Density Target for designated residential Greenfield areas of 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare provided Alcona is identified as an Urban Node and additional population is allocated to Innisfil; and That the Town of Innisfil request that a Proposed Alternative Density Target for the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area of 30 jobs per hectare; and That the Greenfield Proposed Alternative Density Target for the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area apply only to the vacant undeveloped lands and not to existing built lands including the Georgian Downs Race Track and the Innisvale Cemetery lands. 6. Effective Date and Transition (pg 26) That the Minister give consideration to further public consultation on any proposed Regulations and furthermore that the Town requests that there be no change in the existing Transition Regulations. 7. Official Plan Conformity (pg 26) That the Town requests that the Town be provided 2 years to bring its Official Plan into conformity with Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan. 8. That the Town request the Minister to appoint of a Hearing Officer as provided in the Section 7 of Places to Grow Act, 2005 That the Minister of Infrastructure review the existing "Delineated Built -up Areas and Boundaries" and "Undelineated Built -up Areas" of Innisfil in the Built Boundary document including the existing "Delineated Built -up Areas" for Alcona and Cookstown and establish "Delineated Built -up Areas" for Sandy Cove, Lefroy -Belle Ewart and for the existing urban areas between Sandy Cove and Alcona and Lefroy -Belle Ewart and Alcona. Fennel's Corners should also be identified as an "Undelineated Built -up Area "; and The Minister of Infrastructure provide clarification as to whether development within the "Undelineated Built -up Areas" will be counted toward the Intensification Targets; and The Minister of Infrastructure be requested to advise the Town how the Province of Ontario will support the Town financially or legally on any appeals that may be made to the Ontario Municipal Board resulting from any Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By- laws to implement the intentions of the Province as proposed in Amendment No. 9 to the Growth Plan; and That given the significance of the strategic employment areas the Minister of Infrastructure be requested to confirm the Provincial interest in funding the required municipal infrastructure necessary for to meet the Province's strategic objectives; and Infinite Opportunities Page 133 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to That this Report be forwarded to the Minister of Infrastructure and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to all Members of Provincial Parliament in the Simcoe County Area, to the County of Simcoe; and That Council extend its appreciation to developers, builders and employers in Innisfil who participated and provided input at the Town sponsored Round Table (see schedule of participants) and those residents who attended and participated in the Town sponsored Open House." Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this most important planning document. Respectfully submitted, Ross Cotton, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Attachment: Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 dated January 26, 2011 cc. Garfield Dunlop, MPP Simcoe North Jim Wilson, MPP, Simcoe Grey Julia Munro, MPP, York Simcoe County Warden Cal Patterson, County of Simcoe Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer, County of Simcoe Rick Newlove, General Manager of Corporate Services, County of Simcoe Bryan MacKell, Director of Planning and Development, County of Simcoe Larry Clay, Regional Director, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Infinite Opportunities Page 134 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to ° TOWN OF INNISFIL STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT NO. DSR- 013 -11 DATE: January 26, 2011 TO: Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Kerry Columbus, Director Planning, Safety and Community Services SUBJECT: Response by Town of Innisfil to the Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. An amendment and implementation tools for the Simcoe Sub -area dated October 2010 by the Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure. CROSS REF.: PDS- 103 -09, PDS- 137 -10, PDS- 012 -11 RECOMMENDATION: THAT Staff Report DSR - 013 -11 be received; and THAT Council acknowledge to the Ministry of Infrastructure receipt of the Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006; and THAT The Minister of Infrastructure be advised that the Council for the Town of Innisfil is concerned with the limited period for the review and response to the Proposed Amendment 1 given the transition to office by the new Council and the lack of time to fully understand the associated implications of the changes outlined in the Proposed Amendment 1; and THAT the Minister of Infrastructure consider extending the consultation period to February 28, 2011 to allow sufficient public and stakeholder engagement; and THAT the Minister of Infrastructure be advised that due to the constraints respecting the timelines for comment Council considered it necessary to have a limited consultation process which included a Roundtable discussion with local developers and builders and an Open House for the public to examine the significant implications this Amendment will have on the future local planning and development for the Town of Innisfil; and Page 135 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 2 of 19 That despite the request by numerous municipalities and stakeholders to the Minister of Infrastructure for the appointment of a Hearing Officer as provided in the Section 7 of Places to Grow Act, 2005 to allow a more full -some discussion and review of potential changes to the Growth Plan and its implications for the Simcoe Area Municipalities, residents and stakeholders the Proposed Amendment 1 was released in October 2010 just prior to the Municipal Election limiting the level and extent of engagement; and Now Therefore the Minister of Infrastructure be requested to give consideration to the following for the purpose of further Amending the Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe: the : 1. Schedule 7 Distribution of Population and Employment (pg 12) That Schedule 7 be revised to indicate the population of Town of Innisfil to be 65,000 persons as per the County of Simcoe Official Plan as adopted in November 2008 and the Town's Growth Management Strategy (Official Plan Amendment 1 to the Town's Official Plan); and 2. Schedule 8 Simcoe Sub -area (pg 13) That Schedule 8 be amended to reflect that Alcona which is an urban Settlement area of currently 15,000 persons and planned for 32,000 persons be identified as an Urban Node; and That the Town support the principle of the identification of Innisfil Heights as the "Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area as marked with a triangle icon on Schedule 8. 3. Definitions (pg.11) That under Definitions (pg.11) that the definition of "Urban nodes" be amended to include "...and community of Alcona in the Town of Innisfil." 4. FIGURE 1 Proposed Boundary of Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area (pg 21) That FIGURE 1 be revised to provide that the geographic size of the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area be enlarged to reflect the boundary as shown on Attachment 5 (size in OPA 1) to this Report DSR- 012 -11 and to also including the K. Winter lands as designated in the existing approved Official Plan. 5. TABLE 1 Proposed Alternative Targets (pg 25) That TABLE 1 as related to the Town of Innisfil be amended to provide a Proposed Alternative Intensification Target of 23% in recognition that Innisfil does not have significant "brownfields" and significant older "Built Boundaries" as identified by the Province that can sustain the higher Intensification Targets as confirmed by an Intensification Study by Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Consultants; and That the Town support the Proposed Alternative Density Target for designated residential Greenfield areas of 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare Page 136 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 3 of 19 provided Alcona is identified as an Urban Node and additional population is allocated to Innisfil; and That the Town of Innisfil request that a Proposed Alternative Density Target for the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area of 30 jobs per hectare; and That the Greenfield Proposed Alternative Density Target for the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area apply only to the vacant undeveloped lands and not to existing built lands including the Georgian Downs Race Track and the Innisvale Cemetery lands. 6. Effective Date and Transition (pg 26) That the Minister give consideration to further public consultation on any proposed Regulations and furthermore that the Town requests that there be no change in the existing Transition Regulations. 7. Official Plan Conformity (pg 26) That the Town requests that the Town be provided 2 years to bring its Official Plan into conformity with Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan. 8. That the Town request the Minister to appoint of a Hearing Officer as provided in the Section 7 of Places to Grow Act, 2005 That the Minister of Infrastructure review the existing "Delineated Built -up Areas and Boundaries" and "Undelineated Built -up Areas" of Innisfil in the Built Boundary document including the existing "Delineated Built -up Areas" for Alcona and Cookstown and establish "Delineated Built -up Areas" for Sandy Cove, Lefroy -Belle Ewart and for the existing urban areas between Sandy Cove and Alcona and Lefroy -Belle Ewart and Alcona. Fennel's Corners should also be identified as an "Undelineated Built -up Area "; and The Minister of Infrastructure provide clarification as to whether development within the "Undelineated Built -up Areas" will be counted toward the Intensification Targets; and The Minister of Infrastructure be requested to advise the Town how the Province of Ontario will support the Town financially or legally on any appeals that may be made to the Ontario Municipal Board resulting from any Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By- laws to implement the intentions of the Province as proposed in Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan; and That given the significance of the strategic employment areas the Minister of Infrastructure be requested to confirm the Provincial interest in funding the required municipal infrastructure necessary for to meet the Province's strategic objectives; and That this Report be forwarded to the Minister of Infrastructure and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to all Members of Provincial Parliament in the Simcoe County Area, to the County of Simcoe; and That Council extend its appreciation to developers, builders and employers in Innisfil who participated and provided input at the Town sponsored Round Table (see schedule Page 137 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR -013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 4 of 19 of participants) and those residents who attended and participated in the Town sponsored Open House. T-[1.0 9CZ61111►1R The Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 and the and implementation tools for the Simcoe Sub -area dated October 2010 by the Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure is a detailed Amendment to the Province's Places to Grow Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe June 16, 2006. Described below is a summary and chronology of the Places to Grow Plan and the subsequent associated planning activities as related to the Town of Innisfil. Provincial Government Planning Initiatives since 2005 Places to Grow Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe June 16, 2006 On June 16, 2006, the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal under then Minister David Caplan released the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This significant Planning document was prepared and approved under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 and also came into effect on June 16, 2006. The Growth Plan affects all of the Municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. In total 109 Municipal jurisdictions are affected by the Growth Plan. The Growth Plan which was under the initial direction and management of the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, transitioned into the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure and has subsequently been established as the Ministry of Infrastructure. The other major Planning Document of the Ontario Government is the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) which was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and also approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and which is administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) applies as specified to all planning jurisdictions in Ontario. When the Growth Plan was released the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal provided direction indicating some of the objectives of the Growth Plan were to provide the opportunity "to preserve more farmland"; "reduce development pressure on our natural areas ". "ease gridlock ", "enhance economic prosperity ", "improve our health ", "complete communities not sprawl ", "infill and redevelopment ... not just Greenfield development ", "make better use of land ", :new job opportunities ", "coordinate land use planning with infrastructure planning ", " increase transportation choices" and `protect what is valuable" (source: Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal Training Course). The Growth Plan itself is a detailed document consisting of eight sections with the first five sections being the policies, implementation and interpretation of the Plan while the remaining three sections are definitions, schedules and appendices. When the Plan was adopted there also was accompanying regulations including transition provisions for existing applications and municipally initiated projects including official plans that were not approved as of June 16, 2006. The Growth Plan in Section 1.2.1 (pg. 10) provides the following Guiding Principles • "Build compact, vibrant and complete communities. • Plan and manage growth to support a strong and competitive economy. Page 138 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 5 of 19 • Protect, conserve, enhance and wisely use the valuable natural resources of land, air and water for current and future generations. • Optimize the use of existing and new infrastructure to support growth in a compact, efficient form. • Provide for different approaches to managing growth that recognize the diversity of communities in the GGH (Greater Golden Horseshoe). • Promote collaboration among all sectors — government, private and non - profit- and residents to achieve the vision." Section 6 of the Growth Plan defines Complete Communities as follows: "Complete communities meet people's needs for daily living throughout an entire lifetime by providing convenient access to an appropriate mix of jobs, local services, a full range of housing and community infrastructure including affordable housing, schools, recreation and open space for their residents. Convenient access to public transportation and options for safe, non - motorized travel is also provided." The Growth Plan in Section 1.4 states that "It contains a set of policies for managing growth and development to the year 2031. While certain policies have specific target dates, the goals and policies of this Plan are intended to be achieved within the life of this Plan." It is further stated that "The lands -use planning process within the GGH is governed primarily by the Planning Act and the Government of Ontario's existing planning system." The Plan also indicates that "This Plan should be read in conjunction with the applicable PPS." One of the most significant policies is contained in Section 2.2.1 Growth Forecasts. In this respect the following is indicated: "2.2.1 Growth Forecasts 1. Population and employment forecasts contained in Schedule 3 for ail upper- and single tier municipalities will be used for planning and managing growth in the GGH. 2. The Minister of Public infrastructure Renewal (now Minister of infrastructure) will review the forecasts contained in Schedule 3 at least every five years in consultation with municipalities, and may revise the forecasts." Schedule 3 to the Growth Plan provides the "Distribution of Population and Employment for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2001 - 2031 ". For your reference this Schedule 3 is Attachment 1 to this Report. Schedule 3 provides a total of the Population and Employment for the GTAH, Outer Ring Total and for the Total GGH. It is also noted that for Counties where there are Separated Cities such as the County of Peterborough (County of Peterborough and City of Peterborough), County of Simcoe (County of Simcoe, City of Barrie, and City of Orillia), County of Wellington (County of Wellington and City of Guelph) and County of Brant(County of Brant and City of Brantford) that there is an total population and employment number specified rather than a breakdown per separated city and local municipalities in the County. Schedule 3 provides the overall population for the year 2031, for the whole GGH 11,500,000 persons from the 2001 number of 7,790,000 persons and 3,810,000 jobs from 2001 to 5,560,000 jobs in 2031. For the aggregated County of Simcoe (County of Simcoe, City of Barrie, Page 139 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 6 of 19 and City of Orillia) the year 2031 overall population is shown as 667,000 persons from the 2001 number of 392,000 and 152,000 jobs from the year 2001 to 254,000 jobs in 2031. As indicated in Section 2.2.1, the population and employment forecasts were for upper tier and single tier municipalities (such as City of Kawartha Lakes, City of Toronto etc) and was not intended to be disaggregated into smaller numbers for lower tier municipalities. The Amendment 1 now provides this disaggregated population for the County of Simcoe which was not the original specified objective of the Growth Plan Built Boundary for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 dated 2008 In 2008, the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal David Caplan released a document entitled Built Boundary for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 dated 2008. This document was prepared in conjunction with comments from the local municipalities including Town's Planning Services Staff and a subsequent Staff Report endorsed by Council. The purpose of this document was to provide specified and detailed boundaries in the Town's settlement area where intensification was to occur and which lands are subject to residential Greenfield standards of 50 persons and jobs per hectare. The Built Boundary document indicates: "Intensification is the development of a property, site, or area at a higher density than currently exists through. • redevelopment, including reuse of brownfield sites; • the development of vacant and /or underutilized lots within previously developed areas; • infill development, • the expansion or conversion of existing buildings. "(pg.2) The Built Boundary document indicates that "the intensification target is a minimum target and municipalities are encouraged to plan for higher densities in built -up areas. Municipalities, through their intensification strategies, will identify areas appropriate for intensification within their built boundary. Built -up areas are defined as the lands within the built boundary. They are those parts of a community's settlement area that are already developed" The built boundary was to identify the built -up area as of June 16, 2006 which was the adoption date of the Growth Plan and is fixed in time for the purposes of implementing and monitoring a number of the key policies of the Growth Plan. Residential development occurring within the built boundary will be counted towards achievement of the intensification target. Lands outside of the built boundary but within the settlement area boundary would be subject to the Greenfield Area policies including the designated Greenfield area density target. The Built Boundary document also indicates "The Growth Plan's minimum density target for designated Greenfield areas will be measured over the entire designated Greenfield area of each upper- or single -tier municipality, and not on individual plans of subdivision. "(pg.4) The Amendment 1 now proposes to disaggregated the Greenfield density target to each of the local municipalities rather than for the County of Simcoe as a whole which was not the original specified objective of the Growth Plan The document further indicates that the built boundary is not a land -use designation and will not confer any new land use designations. Any development within the built boundary is still subject to the relevant provincial and municipal land -use planning policies and approval processes. However the existing Regulations under the Growth Plan requires that all Town Planning documents be amended to conform to the Growth Plan. The document also indicates that `The Page 140 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 7 of 19 inclusion of lands within the built boundary does not necessarily mean that these lands will be developed or built upon.... Similarly, existing stable neighbourhoods within the built -up area might not be a focus for intensification "(pg. 5). While it is possible to provide intensification within the Province's delineated Built Boundary for Alcona and Cookstown, the proposed requirement of 40 percent cannot be achieved without adversely affecting stable neighbourhoods. The document indicates that feedback and advice was received from municipalities due to their local expert knowledge to delineate the proposed final built boundary. (pg.5)The Town provided this input to the Ministry, however the built boundary adopted as part of this document did not include all the Town's existing built area as of June 16, 2006 as requested. The Town staff has had subsequent discussion with Ministry staff but no further adjustment to the built boundary has been forthcoming. Within the limited built boundary provided by the Ministry it creates additional difficulty in achieving any intensification targets. The Built Boundary document on pg.43 provides the mapping for the County of Simcoe area entitled "Built Boundary for the County of Simcoe". This is Attachment 2 to this Report. It is noted for Innisfil that Alcona and Cookstown are shown with `Delineated Built -up Areas" while Gilford, Churchill, Lefroy -Belle Ewart and Stroud are illustrated as "Undelineated Built -up Areas ". The document also indicates the built -up area and built boundary must lie within a settlement area.(pg.10) and that built boundaries are developed for settlement areas over a threshold of 400 residential units.(pg. 11) There is no recognition for the built -up area of Sandy Cove or the built -up areas along the lakeshore between Sandy Cove and Alcona and between Alcona and Lefroy -Belle Ewart all of which have in excess of 400 residential units. These areas were asked to be included in the "Delineated Built -up Areas" while Fennels Corners be an "Undelineated Built -up Area." The New Official Plan recognized this issue and attempted to delineate built -up areas in Sandy Cove and Lefroy -Belle Ewart but the Province requested that these boundaries be made a Non - Decision until the Province themselves under Places to Grow come up with a built boundary. The document indicates that in the definition of "Built -up Area" that it is all lands within the built boundary and that the built boundary consists of delineated and undelineated built -up areas.(pg.48) The document also indicates that built lands include any residential, commercial, industrial and institutional use. It is also indicated that undelineated built -up areas are for smaller un- serviced or partially serviced settlement areas which have limited capacity to accommodate significant future growth and that since they are not expected to be a focus for intensification, they do not require a delineated built boundary for future monitoring purposes. It also indicated when two settlement areas are adjacent, functionally connected and in the same municipality they are considered a single settlement area for the purpose of delineating a built boundary. Based on the Built Boundary document descriptions and on how the built boundary is to be determined, it is concluded that the built boundary provided by the Ministry is incorrect and incomplete in the Built Boundary document. Since the built boundary is much smaller than what the existing built -up areas of the Town actually are as of June 16, 2006, it makes it much more difficult for the Town to achieve the Intensification required. It is recommended that the Minister review the existing "Delineated Built -up Areas" for Alcona and Cookstown and establish "Delineated Built -up Areas" for Sandy Cove, Lefroy -Belle Ewart and for the existing urban areas between Sandy Cove and Alcona and Lefroy -Belle Ewart and Alcona. Fennel's Corners should also be identified as an "Undelineated Built -up Area ". Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth released June 4, 2009 On June 4, 2009, Minister George Smitherman (Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure) released the Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth which was a document regarding a proposed Page 141 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 8 of 19 Simcoe Area specific amendment to the existing Places to Grow Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This document also dealt with the "Barrie - Innisfil Boundary Resolution ". At that time it was also anticipated the final recommendations resulting from the Strategic Vision and any subsequent Growth Plan amendments would also be used as a basis for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in their approval and modifications to the County of Simcoe Official Plan and City of Barrie Official Plan which at that time were both before that Ministry. Those matters are now both before the Ontario Municipal Board. The expectation was that Municipalities would also have to subsequently amend their planning documents to conform. This included the Town's Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment No. 1. The Province had provided a consultation until September 1, 2009. The Town along with other municipalities and stakeholders responded to the Province during that consultation period. Council had adopted the recommendations from Staff Report PDS -103- 09 (CR- 366.09 which is Attachment 3 to this Report). To summarize the Town's comments to the Ministry, the following recommendations on the document were provided to the Minister and in italics is described how the concerns of the Town were dealt with in the proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan: • The settlement of Alcona and area in the Town of Innisfil be identified as an Urban Node Response in proposed Amendment 1: Alcona and area has not been identified as an Urban Node on Schedule 8 nor in the Definition of Urban Node (pg.11). • That the Town agrees and strongly support the designation of Innisfil Heights as a 'Strategic Employment Area' in the Growth Plan and the proposed employment allocation of 13,100 to the Town. Response in proposed Amendment 1: The Innisfil Heights area had been identified as a Proposed Strategic Employment Area and had been marked with the icon of a triangle centering on the intersection of Innisfil Beach Road and Highway 400 in the Strategic Vision document. There was no specific geographic delineation provided. The proposed Schedule 8 of Amendment 1 again marks the Proposed Strategic Industrial Employment Area with the icon of a triangle centering on the intersection of Innisfil Beach Road and Highway 400. We support that identification in general terms. In the Implementation section of the proposed Amendment 1, Figure 1(pg. 13) now provides a geographic delineation of the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area. The Town had met with Ministry staff in March 2010 and had been shown a proposed delineation. At that time Ministry staff had been advised that the extent of the delineation was inadequate to meet Town requirements and contained less land area than in the Official Plan now in effect since 1993 approved by the Province or in the Town's subsequent Growth Management Strategy adopted by Official Plan Amendment 1. We also note that the other Employment Area or Districts have Figures showing their geographic delineations. The geographic delineation shown in the Implementation section now encompasses the entire Innisfil Heights Employment Area shown in the Town's Official plan but not the additional area proposed through Official Plan Amendment 1. Page 142 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 9 of 19 The Innisfil Heights area has now also been renamed from "Proposed Strategic Employment Area" to `Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area ". This is shown on Schedule 8 with a triangle icon. (pg.13) The Amendment also provides on Pg 16 five policies related to how the area will develop with manufacturing, warehousing, assembly, processing and outside storage uses. Major retail and residential uses will not be permitted. The area will also be planned for large lots and that employment — supportive uses will occupy no more that 25 per cent of the area. The specific delineation is shown on Figure 1. It is indicated that this component of the document is the proposed text, additional policies and maps that may be issued by the Minister to implement the Amendment. This will likely result in the Town being required to adopt new Official Plan and Zoning By -law standards including what some may construe as "down zoning ". There is no indication of how the Ministry would support the Town in any Ontario Municipal Board Appeals of these actions either legally or financially. • That the Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (now Ministry of Infrastructure) and all other relevant Ministries be requested to participate in the funding for municipal infrastructure necessary for the development, implementation and servicing of the Alcona Urban Node and the Innisfil Heights Strategic Employment Area. Response in proposed Amendment 1: There is no specific reference in the document to funding. Only on pg 1 of the Amendment under Introduction the document indicates that Amendment 1 is the third step of six steps to be undertaken by the Province. The future fifth step is: "Undertaking a Simcoe area infrastructure plan, including a strategy for water and wastewater in the Simcoe area that includes mechanisms for coordinating service delivery. " Council should be aware that the County is in the midst of undertaking a servicing review with the intention of gathering particulars of the local water and wastewater services for future discussion. That project is nearing completion and the County area CAD's and Engineering staff will be engaged in further discussions before a final report is prepared for County Council. • That the Town requests the Ministry of Infrastructure consider revising the proposed 2031 Population Allocation in Table 2 for Innisfil to reflect the population of 65,000 as proposed in the County of Simcoe Official Plan and the Town's adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 1. Response in proposed Amendment 1: The proposed population for Innisfil in the 2009 Vision Statement was 58,000. The County Official Plan adopted in 2008 provided 65,000 persons as did the Town's Growth Management Strategy in OPA 1 to the Town's Official Plan. The Town had requested that the population of 65,000 be restored to be consistent with the adopted County Official Plan and to allow a modest expansion to the Town's major Urban Node of Alcona. However, the proposed Amendment 1 reduced further the population from the Vision Statement's 58, 000 population to 56, 000 persons. in comparison terms, the drop of 9, 000 persons from the County Official Plan population of 65,000 persons is the single largest population drop in all of the County. While the Town lost 2,200 hectares of land to the City Page 143 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 10 of 19 of Barrie in that time period as a result of the Vision Statement and the Boundary Adjustment Act, there were only 520 persons living within the annexed lands. As a result, not only did Innisfil suffer a loss of a significant amount of land to Barrie, it also lost future development and assessment growth in the other parts of Innisfil unaffected by annexation. . Innisfil in recent history has been the largest municipality in the County of Simcoe other than the City of Barrie. It is even larger than the separated City of Orillia. This has been largely due to the continued development of Alcona as an Urban Node and settlement area implementing the 1993 Official Plan approved by the Province. Even with the population as proposed at 56,000 persons, Innisfil will remain one of the largest municipalities shared with New Tecumseth also with 56,000 persons. Bradford West Gwillimbury would be third largest with 50,500 persons. In both of these other municipalities the Province has seen fit to identify Urban Nodes in Afliston and Bradford while Alcona is not identified despite Alcona's current population of 15, 000 persons and the planned population of 32,000 persons. • That the Ministry of Infrastructure be advised that the Town supports the County of Simcoe request to increase the Schedule 3 Distribution of Population in the Ontario Growth Plan for the County of Simcoe including Barrie and Orillia to an overall 2031 population in the Growth Plan from 667,000 persons to 707,000 and that additional population be distributed to the lower tier municipalities in the County of Simcoe including 7,000 population to the Town of Innisfil. Response in proposed Amendment 1: The County had requested that the overall population of the County on Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan be increased from 667,000 to 707,000 persons. This would have allowed all of Municipalities to achieve the population numbers in the County of Simcoe Official Plan including the City of Barrie and the Town of Innisfil. This Amendment could have dealt with that request since it is in effect amending Schedule 3 but did not do so the overall County population including the separated cities remains at 66 7, 000 persons. The Ministry staff has advised that they are continuing with their plans to review of Schedule 3 for the entire Greater Golden Horseshoe but do not expect it to be completed until 2012 when the 2011 Census information becomes available. This then raises the question as to whether the Proposed Amendment 1 is premature pending the eventual updating of Schedule 3. • That the Town's Administration participate with Provincial staff and County staff in the development and preparation of the related policy framework and detailed delineation for the `Proposed Strategic Employment Area' and the Alcona Urban Node. Response in proposed Amendment 1: The Town had met with County and Ministry staff in March 2010 and had been shown the proposed delineation. At that time Town staff advised Ministry staff that the delineation was not appropriate to meet Town requirements. We had also reviewed the proposed policies with them at that same meeting. Page 144 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report IDS R -013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 11 of 19 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. An amendment and implementation tools for the Simcoe Sub -area dated October 2010 by the Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure. The Ministry of Infrastructure has advised that after review of the various comments and other related consultation on the June 2009 Strategic Vision for Growth, they have released on October 28, 2010 the "Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006; An Amendment and implementation tools for the Simcoe Sub - area." This proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan applies specifically to all municipalities in the geographic boundaries of the County of Simcoe including the separated Cities of Barrie and Orillia. The document deals with population and employment projections; identification of Urban Nodes; identification and policies for the development of strategic employment areas and density and intensification targets for the County as a whole and each of the individual municipalities. It also provides for the passing on related Regulations respecting the Transition of existing Applications and municipally initiated planning projects. There are also provisions for the dates that County, City and local municipalities are required to make their planning documents conform. The proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan is prepared as an additional chapter to the Growth Plan and in reviewing the document it is necessary to review both proposed Amendment 1 and the Growth Plan together as one document. I_1 ki F_1 W&I69Ld6P►141 X74 C7r 1I 101Z F Issues with Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan Public Consultation and Request to Appoint a Hearing Officer under Places to Grow Act The Ministry of Infrastructure has provided a consultation period ending January 31, 2011 to receive comments and feedback. The Town through the adoption of Staff Report DSR- 137 -10 has requested an extension of the consultation period. The County of Simcoe and a number of the other local municipalities have also requested similar extensions. The Town has not received any response from the Province on this important request to extend the consultation process. The Ministry of Infrastructure has chosen briefing sessions as their forum for consultation under the Places to Grow Act. Invitations have been extended to Municipalities, stakeholders (including environmental organizations, community and ratepayer groups and the development community among others). The proposed Amendment is also posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). The Town has posted the request for an extension on the EBR and others are encouraged to do so. The posting on the EBR makes the document a public document for others to review. In the past, the Ministry has declined to provide comments submitted by various parties other than those postings on the EBR. Town staff as well as Town elected officials have attended several of the briefing sessions. In the sessions that Staff attended, a power point presentation is made by Ministry staff followed by a question period. The powerpoint presentation is located at: https: / /www.placestogrow.ca /images /pdfs /PGPAl presentation.pdf At one session, the question was raised about the level of consultation being undertaken to conform to the requirements of the Places to Grow Act which specifies as follows: Page 145 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR -013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 12 of 19 "Minister may confer 7.(2) the minister may confer with any person, public Body or other body that the Minister considers may have an interest in the proposed plan," Ministry staff responded that the consultation approach and the time limit for consultation were appropriate to meet the requirements of the Growth Plan Act, 2005. Furthermore the question was asked whether the Minister would appoint a Hearing Officer which Section 7.(3) provides for a follows: "Hearing Officer 7.(3) The Minister may appoint one or more hearing officers for the purpose of conducting one or more hearings within the area to which the propose plan applies or in the general proximity of that area for the purpose of receiving representations respecting, (a) the proposed plan or any part of the proposed plan or any matter relating to the proposed plan that has been specified by the Minister, or (b) a proposed modification to the proposed plan under subsection (4) or a matter relating to a proposed modification that has been specified by the Minister." The Ministry staff responded that they are of the view that a Hearing Officer is not required and the present consultation process is adequate. Town Administration are of the view that the proposed Amendment to the Growth Plan is a significant planning document that has significant implication to the Town of Innisfil and has an impact on the County of Simcoe which is the second largest County in Ontario and the largest County or Region in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. While this document has been prepared under the auspices of the Growth Plan Act and the Minister of Infrastructure, the document is effectively a planning instrument as it relates to the dis- aggregation of population from the upper tier as the original Growth Plan was designed to do; providing the geographic delineation of employment areas; providing detailed land uses that will subsequently be codified by Official Plan Amendments and Zoning Amendments; providing detailed density standards at a local settlement level and requiring residential intensification standards. Ministry staff in the briefing sessions has referred to proposed Amendment 1 as a strategic planning document. Due to the significant planning implications this document will have on local municipal planning and future land development, it is imperative that there be as much transparency and public consultations as possible. As such the Minister should use his full authority under the Growth Plan Act and appoint a Hearing Officer. It should be noted that once this document is approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council (Ontario Government Cabinet) there are no avenues of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Engagement of the Innisfil Development Sector and the Public In Staff Report DSR- 137 -10 Council gave authorization for local development sector and general public engagement. The proposed Amendment 1 was considered a significant planning document that would have short and long term implications to the planning of our Town and resultant economic and environmental well being. Due to the limited response period provided by the Ministry ending January 31, 2011 there was a short but concentrated process of community consultation undertaken by the Town with the assistance of a Facilitator Lynda Newman and Planning Consultants Sorensen Gravely Lowes. There were initial newspaper ads, media release and e- mails, letters and telephone Page 146 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR -013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 13 of 19 communication. Roundtable discussion was undertaken with the development and building industry. There was also an Open House forum to receive comment from the general public. The results of the Town's consultation efforts are included as Attachment 4 to this Report. Population Projections — Schedule 7 (pg. 12) In June 2006, the Provincial Government enacted the Places to Grow Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Included is "Schedule 3 Distribution of Population & Employment for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2001 - 2031" which established an overall population of 667,000 persons and employment of 254,000 for the whole Simcoe County area including Barrie and Orillia for the Year 2031. Subsequently, the County of Simcoe undertook a detailed Growth Plan for the County to determine how the Places to Grow Provincial Growth Plan Schedule 3 population and employment numbers could be distributed to all the Municipalities within the Simcoe Area based on appropriate planning. The County Growth Plan was subsequently implemented by the adoption of the Simcoe County Official Plan on November 25, 2008. The Town of Innisfil subsequently completed a Growth Management Study in January 2009. The Growth Management Study concluded that based on the Official Plan Approvals from the 1993 Official Plan and Intensification within the built -up areas based on 23 per cent and without any boundary expansions that there would be a resultant population of 54,500 persons for the entire Town of Innisfil for the year 2031. The Study also concluded that a Year 2031 population target of 65,000 persons was an appropriate population target. This population target allowed for a compact planned moderate expansion of Alcona to the north and south allowing maximization of the Town's lakeshore based sewer and water infrastructure as well as enhancing and strengthening the existing Urban Node of Alcona as the major urban center of Innisfil. This growth was also along the existing GO Transit rail corridor and increased the population base to facilitate the future construction of a GO Train station in Innisfil and supporting public transit. This new development would also facilitate the creation of some additional employment opportunities and would be developed at the Greenfields residential density standards of Places to Grow and meet all environmental requirements of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act. Based on the Growth Management Study, Council adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 1 (OPA 1) to the Town's Official Plan on April 15, 2009 with the population of 65.000 persons and employment numbers of 13,100 as stated in the adopted County of Simcoe Official Plan. OPA 1 was subsequently approved by the County of Simcoe as Approval Authority but it has been appealed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and others. No Ontario Municipal Board Hearing has been scheduled to date. It is the opinion of staff that the population of 65,000 persons for the year 2031 is appropriate for the Town to allow for proper and compact growth and meet the objectives of the Ontario Growth Plan. With the limited population of 56,000 as proposed in Amendment 1 it will limit the ability of the Town to meet the requirements of the Growth Plan. Employment and Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Lands - Schedule 7(pg. 12), Schedule 8(pg.13), Implementation (pg.18) and Figure 1(pg.21) The 2009 Strategic Vision provided detailed employment allocations for all the Municipalities. Innisfil had been provided 13,100 jobs which is consistent with the adopted County Official Plan and the Town's adopted OPA 1. Table 7 of proposed Amendment 1 also indicates the employment number of 13,100 jobs. Page 147 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR -013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Paqe 14 of 19 The 2009 Strategic Vision proposed to designate Innisfil Heights as a "Proposed Strategic Employment Area'. Schedule 8 of Amendment 1 also designates this area as the "Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area ". This is marked with a triangle icon on Schedule 8. Staff support the identification of this area with a triangle icon. The Innisfil Heights area has now been renamed from "Proposed Strategic Employment Area" in the Strategic Vision to the "Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area'. This is shown on Schedule 8 with a triangle icon. (pg.13) The Amendment also provides on Pg 16 five policies on how the area will develop with manufacturing, warehousing, assembly, processing and outside storage uses. Major retail and residential uses will not be permitted. The area will also be planned for large lots and that employment — supportive uses will occupy no more that 25 per cent of the area. The specific delineation is shown on Figure 1. It is indicated that this component of the document is the proposed text, additional policies and maps that may be issued by the Minister to implement the Amendment. This will likely result in the Town being required to adopt new Official Plan and Zoning By -law standards including what may be termed as "down zoning ". There is no indication of how the Ministry would support the Town (either legally or financially) in any Ontario Municipal Board Appeals of these actions to "down zone" . There are also standards in the proposed Amendment 1 requiring Employment areas to be developed at standards of 50 jobs per hectare as "Greenfield" development. The Amendment also has a Figure 1 which specifies the "Proposed Boundary of Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area ". The boundary shown on Figure 1 is the same boundary as reflected in the Town's 1993 Official Plan approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 1995 excepting the K Winters lands and in the Town's Official Plan now under Appeal by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Town is seeking either that there be no Figure 1 or that the designation be enlarged firstly to include the K Winter lands and then to also include the additional employment lands identified in the Town's Growth Management Strategy as implemented by Official Plan Amendment 1 to the Town's Official Plan in order to accommodate the 13,100 employment allocated to Innisfil. This is shown on Attachment 5 of this report. Town Administration are of the view that expanding the size of the area consistent with the Town's OPA 1 will provide a stronger business case for the servicing of the area and help to ensure the Province's economic development objectives and job creation targets. It is stated in proposed Amendment 1 that the whole of the Employment area is to be considered as Greenfield and must achieve the density of 50 jobs per hectare. With the inclusion of the entire Employment area, there are lands that have an existing very low employment yield due to the partially serviced nature of the area (ie. Private sanitary servicing only). As well, the Innisvale cemetery and crematorium on the west side of Highway 400 has vitually no employment. Georgian Downs Slots and Raceway, while a major employer in the Town, has many part time positions and consumes a considerable land base with the racing track, stables and parking and loading areas. There are also a number of large lots involving open storage types of uses which Amendment 1 requires which have large land requirements with limited job opportunities. The developed portion of Innisfil Heights is estimated to have a density of only 20 jobs per hectare. The density of 50 jobs per hectare for employment lands is very difficult to achieve and only a few very intense business parks in the Greater Golden Horseshoe approach this density. With full municipal services, the new developed areas in Innisfil heights may achieve higher job densities than currently exist; however the range of industries being suggested in the Implementation section of proposed Amendment 1 ie. Large extensive industrial uses and limited commercial and service uses would make it very difficult to approach a density of 50 jobs per hectare. Page 148 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 15 of 19 A recommendation of this Report is that the Greenfield standards be applied to only the undeveloped land in the Innisfil Heights Employment Area and not be averaged with the existing developed employment lands that are at a much lower employment yield. As well a yield of 50 jobs per hectare is not attainable due to the types of uses being sought by proposed Amendment 1. A density of 30 jobs per hectare is considered more achievable if full municipal services are provided or at the present density of 20 jobs per hectare on partial services. Urban Node for Alcona Schedule 8 (pg. 13) The 2009 Strategic Vision identified five Urban Nodes which included Barrie, Collingwood, Orillia, Alliston and Bradford. In the September 2009 submission by Council on the Strategic Vision the designation of Alcona was sought as an Urban Node. Amendment 1 on Schedule 8 again identified Barrie, Collingwood, Orillia, Alliston and Bradford but also added Midland and Penatanguishene. Alcona was not identified as an Urban Node. The Town's largest settlement area is Alcona with an estimated 2008 population of 15,000 persons and a built out population within the present settlement boundary of 22,000 persons and an additional planned population of 32,000 resulting from Official Plan Amendment 1. Alcona is an emerging urban growth node in the Town with significant current and future investments in municipal water treatment and sanitary sewage treatment, urban design of the main street of Innisfil as well as the, reconstruction and urbanization of Innisfil Beach Road, and the provision of new community infrastructure position Alcona as the Town's future. Recently an article in the OPPI Journal described how the Innisfil Beach Road Urban Design Study was prepared and how the Town is actively implementing the urbanization of Innisfil Beach Road through major capital expenditures of $ 27 Million for Precinct 3 and Precinct 2B in the downtown area. The Town's Official Plan as related to the Core Commercial Area has also been approved to allow mixed use commercial / residential allowing up to 7 storey buildings. The Town is also just completing an implementing Zoning By -law Amendment to implement the Urban Design Study allowing 1.0 metres building setbacks from the street line among other urban design standards. The community of Alcona also has one secondary school and four elementary schools and a fifth planned site. Innisfil is also served with bus service and train service by GO Transit, including a proposed GO Train station in Lefroy directly south of Alcona. There also has been considerable commercial development in recent years to support the growing population of the Town. All of this work has been undertaken with the objective of creating and maintaining a complete community. The term Urban Node is not a term found in the parent Growth Plan and Amendment 1 does not contain and criteria as to the nature and character of Urban Nodes. Respecting commercial services in Alcona, the Town in July 2010 retained Tate Economic Research Inc. to undertake a Commercial Demand and Development Opportunity Study. While the Study is still being completed, one of the preliminary results of the Study indicate that within the Alcona Settlement Area there are 89 commercial business in the urban node comprising 277,300 square feet of existing floor area with a building permit issued for an additional 66,000 square feet for a Canadian Tire Store. There are also some additional applications and pending applications for commercial uses within the designated "Core Commercial Area" along Innisfil Beach Road in the downtown area which will significantly increase this commercial floor area. Under Definitions (pg.11) there is a definition of Urban Nodes but the definition only lists the identified Urban Nodes shown on Schedule 8 and does not provide any description of the nature of them. It will be necessary to have that Definition amended to state "...and Alcona in the Town of Innisfil." Page 149 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR -013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 16 of 19 Intensification Targets and Alternative Density Targets — Table 1(pg.25) Proposed Amendment 1 includes Table 1 entitled Proposed Alternative Targets. In Table 1, Innisfil is shown as being required to provide intensification within the existing built boundary of 40% commencing in the Year 2015. This is the same intensification targets provided for all the Urban Nodes identified by proposed Amendment 1 while the remainder of municipalities in the County are required to provide 20% and the average for the whole County of Simcoe is 33 per cent. The Amendment in Table 1 also includes Alternative Density Targets for designated greenfield areas. Innisfil is shown as being required to provide development at 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare which is the same as targets provided for all the Urban Nodes identified by the Amendment while the remainder of the County is required to provide 32% and the County of Simcoe average is 41 per cent. Based on existing designations and approvals, the designated Greenfield density within the current approved settlement boundaries will reach only 30 persons and jobs per hectare without including Innisfil Heights. The Town requires the proposed new settlement expansion areas in Alcona, as set out in OPA 1, in order for the Town to achieve the density target of 50 persons and jobs per hectare. If the Town is not given an increased population allocation under the Growth Plan Amendment, it will not be able to meet the designated Greenfield density target. The Intensification is required to be undertaken within the Built -up areas by Places to Growth. The two areas are located as parts of Alcona and Cookstown. A detailed study commissioned by the Town indicates that only 23 per cent Intensification may be achievable. As previously indicated in this Report the Built -up boundaries require further review by the Minister. It is also recommended that Intensification Target be reduced to 23 per cent. OPTIONSIALTERNATIVES: That Council could determine not to provide any comments to the Ministry of Infrastructure on the Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006; FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: This Report does not have any direct financial implications. If the Town is successful in delaying the response to the end of February, 2011 there may be additional costs for the Town's Consultants and staff overtime. Larger financial impacts of what is being recommended are difficult to quantify because of the impact it will have on future growth. . CONCLUSION: That Council express its concern to the Ministry of Infrastructure as to the limited response period of January 31, 2011 given the fact that the new Council took office on December 1, 2010 and requires a period for transition including the opportunity to be fully engaged with the implications associated with the proposed Amendment 1; and That the Province consider extending the consultation period to February 28, 2011 to allow sufficient public and stakeholder engagement; and That the Minister of Infrastructure be advised that Council considered it necessary to have full local community consultation including a Roundtable discussion of local developers and builders Page 150 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 17 of 19 and an Open House for the public due to the significant effects that this Amendment will have on the future local planning and development for the residents of Innisfil; and That the Minister of Infrastructure be advised that Council engaged the services of a facilitator to assist with the local community consultation and that the Report of the Facilitator is a component of this Staff Report; and Town position on the Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006; and That the Minister of Infrastructure appoint a Hearing Officer as provided in the Section 7 of Places to Grow Act, 2005 to allow a more full discussion and review of the proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan and its implications for the Municipalities and residents of the County of Simcoe area; and That the Province consider revisions to Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as follows. 1. Schedule 7 Distribution of Population and Employment (pg 12) That Schedule 7 be revised to indicate the population of Town of Innisfil to be 65,000 persons as per the County of Simcoe Official Plan as adopted in November 2008 and the Town's Growth Management Strategy (Official Plan Amendment 1 to the Town's Official Plan); and That the Town support the employment of 13,100 jobs as listed on Schedule 7 and as per the County of Simcoe Official Plan and the Town's Growth Management Strategy (Official Plan Amendment 1 (OPA1) to the Town's Official Plan); and 2. Schedule 8 Simcoe Sub -area (pg 13) That Schedule 8 be amended so that Alcona which is a urban Settlement area of currently 15,000 persons and planned for 32,000 persons be identified as an Urban Node; and That the Town support the principle of the identification of Innisfil Heights as the "Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area as marked with a triangle icon on Schedule 8. That under Definitions (pg.11) that the definition of "Urban nodes" be amended to include '...and Alcona in the Town of Innisfil." 4. FIGURE 1 Proposed Boundary of Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area (pg 21) That FIGURE 1 be revised to provide that the geographic size of the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area be enlarged to reflect the boundary as shown on Attachment 5 (size in OPA 1) to this Report DSR- 012 -11 and also including the K. Winter lands as designated in the existing approved Official Plan. 5. TABLE 1 Proposed Alternative Targets (pg 25) That TABLE 1 as related to the Town of Innisfil be amended to provide a Proposed Alternative Intensification Target of 23% in recognition that Innisfil does not have significant "brownfields" and significant older "Built Boundaries" as identified by the Page 151 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR- 013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 18 of 19 Province that can sustain any higher Intensification Targets as confirmed by an Intensification Study by Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Consultants; and That the Town support the Proposed Alternative Density Target for designated residential Greenfield areas of 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare provided Alcona is identified as an Urban Node and additional population is allocated to Innisfil; and 6. That the Town of Innisfil request that a Proposed Alternative Density Target for the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area of 20 jobs per hectare; and 7. That the Greenfield Proposed Alternative Density Target for the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area apply only to the vacant undeveloped lands and not to existing built lands including the Georgian Downs Race Track and the Innisvale Cemetery lands. 8. Effective Date and Transition (pg 26) That there be public consultation on any proposed Regulations, and furthermore, that the Town requests that there be no change in the existing Transition Regulations. 9. Official Plan Conformity (pg 26) That the Town requests that the Town be provided 2 years to bring its Official Plan into conformity with Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan. That the Minister review the existing "Delineated Built -up Areas and Boundaries" and "Undelineated Built -up Areas" of Innisfil in the Built Boundary document including the existing "Delineated Built -up Areas" for Alcona and Cookstown and establish "Delineated Built -up Areas" for Sandy Cove, Lefroy -Belle Ewart and for the existing urban areas between Sandy cove and Alcona and Lefroy -Belle Ewart and Alcona. Fennel's Corners should also be identified as an "Undelineated Built -up Area "; and The Minister provide clarification as to whether development within the "Undelineated Built -up Areas" will be counted toward the Intensification Targets; and The Minister advise the Town how the Province of Ontario will support the Town financially or legally on any appeals that may be made to the Ontario Municipal Board resulting from any Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -laws that "down zone" lands to implement the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan; and That the Ontario Ministry Infrastructure and all other relevant Ministries be requested to participate in the funding for municipal infrastructure necessary for the development, implementation and servicing of the Alcona Urban Node and the Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area; and That this Report be forwarded to the Minister of Infrastructure and to all Members of Provincial Parliament in the Simcoe County Area, to the County of Simcoe and all local Municipalities in the County and the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia; and That both the developers, builders and employers in Innisfil that participated in the Town sponsored Round Table and those residents who participated in the Town sponsored Open House be thanked for their participation and comments. Page 152 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Staff Report DSR -013 -11 January 26, 2011 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 19 of 19 PREPARED BY: Ross Cotton, BAA, MPI, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning REVIEWED BY: Ross Cotton, Manager of Planning APPROVED BY: Kerry Columbus, Director of Planning, Safety and Community Services Attachments: 1. Schedule 3 — Distribution of Population and Employment (Growth Plan) 2. Built Boundary for the County of Simcoe (Built Boundaries Report, 2008) 3. Town of Innisfil Council Resolution CR- 366.09 dated September 2, 2009 4. Town of Innisfil Summary Report on Consultation by Clara Consulting, January 10, 2011 5. Town of Innisfil Official Plan Amendment 1 — Innisfil Heights Employment Area including K. Winter Lands. Page 153 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Page 154 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to .y r Legend Bcutd., d upper- and 5NIl Ter Munitlpa ties --- 8oiadary ar LOweriier MUMdpaMtles - SuIRBOundar/ BA-Up Nees euIlt -upA— t - 4 4 Greenttelt Nes' SOe a W P MNbUy d d K inbastr .1 A n . M kdb y No d ,. Nah,rel R— ­ d d MhYCtry rr MUntdpel Affdlrs rM fbuaty p _ ' Oab�1D aequbtlan 59/p5 ( N , 4 I J .iay Al Built Boundary for the T he information displayed on the base map has been compiled from various sources, may not accurately reflect approved land -use and planning boundaries, may not be to County of Simcoe S cale, and may be out of date. The Province of Ontario assumes no responsibility or liability for any consequences of any use made of this map. Built Boundary for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 43 Page 155 of 252 r / N. UA k i t t I • t 4 •a• t 5 r y L T Legend Bcutd., d upper- and 5NIl Ter Munitlpa ties --- 8oiadary ar LOweriier MUMdpaMtles - SuIRBOundar/ BA-Up Nees euIlt -upA— t - 4 4 Greenttelt Nes' SOe a W P MNbUy d d K inbastr .1 A n . M kdb y No d ,. Nah,rel R— ­ d d MhYCtry rr MUntdpel Affdlrs rM fbuaty p _ ' Oab�1D aequbtlan 59/p5 ( N , 4 I J .iay Al Built Boundary for the T he information displayed on the base map has been compiled from various sources, may not accurately reflect approved land -use and planning boundaries, may not be to County of Simcoe S cale, and may be out of date. The Province of Ontario assumes no responsibility or liability for any consequences of any use made of this map. Built Boundary for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 43 Page 155 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Council Agenda September 2, 2009 Page 6 of 11 (9.5) Staff Report PDS- 103 -09, submitted by the Director of Planning & Development, re: Ontario Places to Grow: Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth, June 2009 — Planting Implications for Innisfil's Growth Management Strategy. Recommendation (Councillor Wardlaw— Planning & Development) That Staff Report PDS - 103 -09, dated September 2, 2009 be received; and That the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure be advised that the following represents the response of the Council of the Town of Innisfil to the June 4, 2009 Ontario Places to Grow: Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth: 1. The settlement of Alcona and area in the Town of Innisfil be identified as an Urban Node on Figure 1 of the Strategic Vision and in the Growth PIan document; 2. That the Town of Innisfil agrees and strongly support the • designation of Innisfil Heights as a `Strategic Employment Area' in the Growth Plan and the proposed employment allocation of 13,100 to the Town; and 3. That the Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure and all other relevant Ministries be requested to participate in the funding for municipal infrastructure necessary for the development, implementation and servicing of the Alcona Urban node and the Innisfil Heights Strategic Employment Area; and 4. That the Town requests the Ontario. Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure to consider revising the proposed 2031 Population Allocation in Table 2 for Innisfil to 65,000 as proposed in the County of Simcoe Official Plan and the Town's adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 1; and 5. That the Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure be advised that the Town support the County of Simcoe request to increase the Schedule 3 Distribution of Population _in the Ontario. Growth Plan for the County of Simcoe including Barrie and Orillia to an overall 2031 population in the Growth Plan from 667,000 persons to 707,000 and that additional population be . distributed to the lower tier municipalities in the County of Simcoe including 7,000 population to the Town of Innisfil; and ...continued... Page 156 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Council Agenda September 2, 2009 Page 7 of 11 Item 9.5 — continued... 6. That the Town of Innisfil participate with Provincial staff and County staff in the development and preparation of the related policy framework and detailed delineation for the `Proposed Strategic Employment Area' and the Alcona Urban Node; and 7. That the Town of Innisfil participate fully with the Provincial staff in the review of governance options and servicing options as outlined in the Strategic Vision for Growth. Page 157 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Attachme t XX o Report ®SR- 012 -11 Summary Repo on Consultation Concerning Town Position on Proposed Amendment 1 to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Background On October 28, 2010, the Ontario Government released an important policy affecting the future growth and development of the Town of Innisfil. Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006) sets new growth and development policies. The Town will be submitting its position on the proposed policy changes by the January 31, 2011 deadline set by the Minister of Infrastructure. Recognizing the importance of these policies to the future wellbeing of residents, businesses and taxpayers and despite the difficulties posed by the release date of the Amendment and the deadline for comments, Town Council wished to consult as broadly as possible. On January 10, 2011, two events were held by the Town: 1) A Round Table discussion with landowners, business persons and development industry representatives; and 2) An advertised Public Open House that attracted a broad spectrum of residents, business persons and community representatives. Participants were unanimous in their support of the Town's decision to submit recommendations for change to the policies in Proposed Amendment 1. The Town was commended for undertaking consultation despite the challenging deadline. Tackling the Issues The Town will support some aspects of Proposed Amendment 1 but will be seeking a number of policy changes. There are five policy areas where issues arise: 1. Alcona is not designated as an Urban Node within the Town of Innisfil; 2. While the Town can support the employment forecast for Innisfil of 13,100 jobs by 2031, the population forecast of 56,000 persons is less than expected by the Town. Additionally, desired settlement boundaries expansions are not supported by the Amendment by allowing the Town's population requirements of 65,000 persons; 3. The Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area is designated to reflect even less than the existing boundaries of Innisfil Heights area and provides no expansion; Page 158 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to 4. Residential and employment densities for Greenfield development are challenging and established at 50 persons and jobs per hectare, the standard for Urban Nodes; 5. The Town is expected to achieve 40% of its growth through intensification and the Town's study of intensification potential has determined that no more than 23% of the Town's growth can be achieved through infilling and redevelopment. These five issues became the focus of the consultation generating extensive discussion. Participants agree with the five Issue areas and offered no others for consideration. Conclusions from the Round Table Urban Node Designation for Alcona There is unanimous agreement that Alcona should be designated as an Urban Node. It is recommended that the Town build its argument for designation around several metrics - current and projected population, available infrastructure, especially sewer, water and regional transit (GO Train), commercial and industrial lands, revitalization of downtown through urban design and capital works and projected job creation - comparing Alcona to other Urban Nodes in the County. 2. 2031 Population and Employment Targets & Potential Settlement Expansions There is unanimous agreement that the population distribution to 2031 should be 65,000 for Innisfil. The Town should support the County's request in the County Official Plan in regard to greater distribution of population into the County. There is unanimous support for an employment target of 13,100 to 2031. This target should not be considered a cap nor limit achievement of greater employment growth in the Town. There is unanimous agreement that expansion of other settlement areas should not be limited by the Amendment. 3. Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area There is unanimous agreement that the Town should seek expansion of the boundaries of the employment area consistent with those described in proposed OPA 1 to the Official Plan. i 2 Page 159 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to The Town's position will be made stronger by making the case that a larger land base is required to support servicing the land to achieve higher densities and the desired balance of residential and employment development. There is unanimous agreement that the Town position should address densities and seek flexibility. Refer to Province's own study on this matter. The Town also should advocate on this issue as part of the larger review of the Growth Plan. 4. Residential and Employment Density Requirements A strategic approach to this issue is required. It needs to be linked to the Town's position on the Urban Node designation. It is recommended that the Town address the status of existing development approvals (i.e., draft plans of subdivision), requesting that they be recognized and upheld by the Province. The Town also should advocate for more appropriate targets as part of the larger review of the Growth Plan. 5. Intensification Requirements A strategic approach to this issue is required. It needs to be linked to the Town's position on the Urban Node designation. It is preferable to work with the designated Urban Nodes in Simcoe to advocate for a lower intensification target for all. The Town also should advocate for a lower target as part of the larger review of the Growth Plan. 6. Advocating the Town's Position 'We commend the Town on it efforts to organize this meeting and for taking a strong stand. We are all behind you. You can count on everyone's support from around this table." Round Table Participant Participants in the Round Table indicated their intention to make complementary submissions to the Ministry of Infrastructure and/or to provide letters of support for the Town position. Recommendations for advocacy included: undertake joint advocacy with the County and other municipalities on common issues; make the negative implications of the proposed policies to our quality of life understandable for the public; muster broad community support and advocacy; work with elected provincial officials of all parties; make presentations to the Minister and other Government members; and, media outreach. Page 160 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Comments from the Public Open House 1. Urban Node Designation for Alcona Most agree with designation of Alcona as an urban node, believing that Alcona has already assumed that role in the Town with its established downtown retail core and recognizing the importance of concentrating future infrastructure (i.e., public transit) in Alcona. As noted below, concerns were expressed about too much density and the loss of existing buildings to intensification. 2. 2031 Population and Employment Targets & Potential Settlement Expansions Comments were mixed on the population target with a suggested compromise target of 60,000. It was suggested that urban settlement growth on Class 4 lands should be supported but that Class 1, 2 & 3 lands should be dedicated to food production. Innisfil Heights Strategic Industrial Employment Area Mixed comments were received including support for creating jobs for future generations to live, work and play in Innisfil while others questioned whether this was sprawl or could be serviced in a fiscally responsible way. 4. Residential and Employment Density Requirements All believe that the densities are too intense and can not be practically implemented. Nonetheless, creating a wider range of housing types is desirable. 5. Intensification Requirements A range of comments included: What about conserving cultural heritage? The target determined by the Town seems reasonable at 23% of growth achieved through intensification. Concern expressed about the `can't do' attitude to achieving provincial policy. G Page 161 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Industrial Employment Area Page 162 of 252 Requested Boundary for Innisfil Heights Strategic 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to T OF COLLINGWOOD January 28, 2011 SENT VIA EMAIL AND COURIER Ontario Growth Secretariat Ministry of Infrastructure 777 Bay Street, 0 Floor, Suite 425 Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 ATTN: Tija Dirks, Director of Growth Policy Planning and Analysis Dear Mrs. Dirks: �Gb r o 41� myo PQ y Pjya �F w v s COLLINGWOOD Sandra Cool cu r. May2 07 Humitedo St. 00 Box 957 CoiGngwood, ON LOY 3Z5 Tel: (705) 445-0451 Ex, 32226 Fort; {705) 445.2468 Email, scoop t&o1ftwood.ce Re: Torun of Collingwood Comments - Amendment No. 1, Growth Plan Review Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, As you know, all of the Simcoe County municipalities are vitally interested in the final form of the Amendment to the Growth Plan, as both the upper and lower tier municipalities need guidance as to how we should up -date our own planning documents and respond to inquiries from our development community.. The Town of Collingwood supports the Ministry of Infrastructure's efforts to prioritize settlements within the County of Simcoe and to identify which communities are best equipped to handle growth and Intensification. These are generally also the communities that are most. likely to be centres of employment and those that are able to provide a wide range of services to residents. The Town of Collingwood is pleased with its designation as an urban node and will work with the County to amend Its official Plan to "identify and plan for intensification" and to plan for a "complete community" with "development of high quality urban form and pubic open spaces ", and "site design and urban design standards that create attractive and vibrant places that support walking and cycling for everyday activities and are transit supportive. The Town appreciates that it is not possible for the Province to provide financial assistance to encourage dispersed growth across large areas which are dependent on increased infrastructure and lead to Increased transportation costs. But the communities which will be the focus of growth need to have sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to the proposals presented to them by the development community. The Town of Collingwood anticipates that it will be able to satisfy the 40% intensification target outlined in Amendment No.1. Staff are currently undertaking a detailed review of all of the potential sites for residential development and intensification. Many of these have the potential to accommodate denser development than is currently contemplated in the Official Plan and Town staff would like to encourage efficient use of the sites with high quality urban design and a mixture of uses within our built boundary. Planning staff would be prepared to aim for a moderately higher intensification target. Staff are very interested in'utilizing many innovative design techniques to ensure that the municipality is developed In as efficient manner as possible. Attached is a sample page from the Sprawl Repair Manual 1 which indicates planning and urban design practices leading to more pedestrian friendly S Gahm Tachieve, Sprawl Repair Manual, Island Press Washington, DC, 2010 Page 163 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to communities of greater density. We are concerned however, that if a proposal is received for a development which would meet or exceed the density target and include a mixture of uses, staff may not be able to support it because of a cap: Collingwood representatives would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these potential scenarios with Provincial and County staff. The Town recognizes that there are areas of the community which are based on proposed Amendment No. 1. The Town would like to provide a reasonable amount of certainty to the owners of land in these areas that once the boundaries are established they will not be re- visited. As noted, the Town does not want to have to amend the interim settlement area boundary in order to be able to approve a denser development within the built boundary. Fortunately Collingwood currently has established two Secondary Plan Areas. The lands within these areas will form the starting point for our discussions on where to place the boundary, The Town would request that the interim settlement boundary only be reflected In the local Official Plan. its location would certainly be developed during consultation with the County, but it is not in the Town's view necessary that the County Plan Amendment be required if a change to the interim settlement boundary may be justified by a municipal comprehensive review. The Town of Collingwood also chooses to echo the comments submitted by a number of other Simcoe municipalities and request that a hearing officer be appointed to review and consider everyone's concerns. In addition, all of the municipalities have been working with Regulation 311106 for a number of years and view this Regulation as a fair and equitable approach to dealing with applications which are partway through the development approval process. Yours truly, Ynper OLLINGWOOD �D" ,� Mayor MnC1. In( Co. CAO Kim Wiingrove Nancy Farmr, Director of Planning Sarvices (Acting) Page 164 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to ar +" �fg1 C���.y� ���:7��✓ � er yy ' + & `� r .y�• ltd j � _ ' � 5 �� Nk'II� �� } ;" J.1 {�t 3° � r '�r ri .'� +U y i 9 , ai.. ; �,,.�+. •'art �h ' p t "GP 4 �; � r . n 1 � / '"1 ?1"'�' W.d }•{, 1 � . u.". : F�1�� , �r� r . y � �,� t•, ta - H�tfi�'�� a,1+ � � � trr ,�� �i �� ,� , � •� �+� ' ? bHr � ��» y { ,} '�'i�.,. �r� y �tS�l• �� rP l ,.... - ... .t „1 """y�"F�� uaY r,4?x • ..f $ 1{ . ♦�rl �.; "'� s. :" ,� "�: �� a t: Ar t '� r h' • r ^e , f �f7 ,�'J' JS ?{rt,• 4 ✓ � A� 1� ,[ep Y t./ /Ki . .{ ,,;:' „s*tJr'!fi 'P � •' � f, .;�A,�� {��r`f�. -y i � TWdN�, "' ,'� + +1 �.t '; , �; y y iyy ~ •�s` X11 I - �P �9 '�i"U�T/A"1"� 4 /�;• 1 ,Jiy�� �� d+`ti'jy[ "3 �.� ' .Sy 1�'.E�� -'i+n MC'�+1"rn� i "�r�e'7���Ir'';l!)• o� t if Qr` M 14 �irty. pl mo a w ha .. r 7. - �.' � SY p 1 ..�• .'S. L.1 pp� Wf�.l�' -q . '. "k ,1 �� j ," 1 't, ^!' s < <t�,. r F Page 165 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to COMMERCIAL STRIP APPLICATION, PREPARING THE CORRIDOR FOR SUCCESSIONAL GROWTH The existing commercial corridor has unpredictable development and Improper parking arrangements. Growth requires parking accommodations that nega- tively affect adjacent residential neighborhoods, espe- cially if denser buildings such as mid- and high -rise 4 -128. Historlcconditlons: Commercial and residential develop- ment are adjacent with parking garages are introduced. Remediation strategies include the Introduction of alleys far park - Ing access, liner buildings to mask the parking lots and garages, and transitional building types to be harmoni- ous with the residential fabric. 4 -130. Phase One: The initial stageof repair includes townhouses 4 -131. Phase Two: Townhouses on both sides of the street ease lining parking structures for a gradual transition the transition to denser redevelopment too SPRAWL REPAIR MANUAL r, r� Page 166 of 252 4.129. Existing conditions; Commercial development encroach- es Into residential fabrlc,wtth garages facing houses 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to BUSINESS PARK " I J - 6 :L V 4-142. Dispersed building and parking layout In existing offIce park % .4 40 • •x �� J 1:�" � '. '1. � \O�i ., /��, f 1 ..,�.. , f ' r T MI�iI/ '�v . `Y.d . 11) -04 ap 10 166 SPRAWL REPAIR MANUAL Ilk, I I A Nfth 1 3 4 4 Page 167 of 252 4-143. OfIlre pailliepaked into a transit-oriented town center 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to SHOPPING MALL •. {c. � f. ✓.fir �tiT .V' f J M J �} �:;I�r "" ,•�^�� . �" i 1� _. �. ,. "`fvw.�..... ♦1^,.,,r"t � � fl p ^ b ♦ w a + ♦ .If�C 1 . I a) • -�°-. r fe ar,�+T da a `♦ f ` r � T ° ams„ � /�� V i. �� IiVI ��r�yka fi+� / >9Sc �f� Q, +� G " +� :r fGJ f � :id f , /`r•.. Q. 4 �.•• w �'� >�•_�L�" a ♦ k� /� S yr ! ^,r 7�! ! ' � - t G'� . �`� . U • i� t � i ' Y•• a , 4 g k 4' / fir � 17 � 4 r• f + , `• t • t a p +"•if t ° cN� c n "'� I�L:J ' M'� � S a .� tt 1��+R�♦ iv r f t r, r t ., ty ^� , � .' �"' t .� � " 1 . �`'� ' ,�• c , - %.': �+ j^+ yips' F7 . E. r P � ( � y 'alrl f.:• t J ,y�, _ t.e "'� � `� „yt "t. • `� f+h, �•utl ► r - i b• - '1'f�C.� l,r ` 1 i �1 • - � � ,., �� �,. X 3 0 ` . -�� �,� r . „� fP,T., f r. r ur'tA'{I ►t ►5v ��e,' �� ' '� '.•,•�' 1',` +t+ .M :.C• ,may a ? "trJ r7; ,''"'�' N. .w.iyC�ii t . t ..,. Y fr, �, I'iy Il 1 4.44, Public realm dominated by parking lots ands megastructure i I ` t + f / �,.+` -i �. 1 f r��" 4 , � /` -lam ,�: c i t ” _ . l: ►• i r°'� � "� .`�,� � ,},` f J ��' �, . ✓ ✓ ✓; ! �, ,� ` It ...,�, u `..' '1'' 4 -45. One strategy (Of Mail repair is retaining the main structure and redeveloping the parking lots REPAIR AT THE COM@MUNITYSCALE 193 Page 168 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to General Administration 217 Gideon Street P.O. Box 200 Stayner, Ontario LOM 150 CLEARVIEW TOWNSHIP Established 1994 January 28, 2011 Hon. Bob Chiarelli Minister of Infrastructure 5th Floor, Mowat Block, 900 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M7A IC2 Administration (705) 428 -6230 Fax (705) 428 -0288 kfereuso n0clea rview.ca www.clearview.ca Hon. Rick Bartolucci Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 17 Floor, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, MSG 2135 Dear Ministers Chiarelli and Bartolucci: Subject: Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Our residents and business community will be dramatically impacted by proposed Amendment 1. The policies which may be established by Amendment 1 will restrict both residential growth opportunities as well as employment growth opportunities. They will impact the municipality's ability to fund and support municipal services and control tax and service rate increases. They will alter the municipalityr's ability to attract new investment, jobs, and opportunities for diversified housing and employment. Amendment 1 proposes new policies which will dramatically impact our municipality by altering anticipated rates of growth, which has a corresponding impact on all of our municipal programs including: our official plans and zoning by -laws; transportation and servicing master plans; environmental assessments; recreational master plans; strategic plans; capital projects and planning programs; long -term budgets; development charges studies and by -laws; and, tax rates. The proposed Growth Plan amendment also intends to challenge longstanding legal principles with respect to transition provisions and established development rights. Amendment 1 would lead to the effective down designation of lands by establishing development phasing requirements which exceed the planning period of official plans and the Growth Plan. There is also a proposal to force lapsing of previously granted approvals and phasing of subdivisions which have fully completed the approvals process and have been registered. This fundamentally alters the long standing principles Page 169 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to of land use planning and those alterations are anticipated to have significant legal consequences including the potential for lengthy and costly litigation. Attached are more detailed comments for consideration by you and your staff. We have also made a series of recommendations which we believe would address our concerns. We believe in the fundamental principles established by the Growth Plan with regard to efficient use of infrastructure, good urban design, environmental protection and the conservation of farmland. We have incorporated these same principles into our own growth plan. We hope that together we can achieve good planning for our communities by respecting each other interests. Respectfully, Ken Fer son, Mayor cc Simcoe County, Warden C. Patterson Mark Aitken, CAO, County of Simcoe Page 170 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to CLEARVIEW TOWNSHIP Established 1994 REVIEW OF, AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING, PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1 TO THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE RECOMMENDATIONS: • Schedule 7 of Amendment 1 should be reviewed and amended in conjunction with Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; • Schedule 7 should be amended to provide a more appropriate consideration of existing development pressures, approved development, existing municipal growth plans and servicing plans, and growth capacity within the County of Simcoe; • The policies related to the use of Schedule 7 forecasts and lands need analysis for planning and managing growth should be expanded upon to indicate that the determination of needs should provide adequate consideration for actual uptake rates and maintaining a supply of lands that is sufficient to sustain market competition and diversity; • The policies related to the use of Schedule 7 forecasts and lands need analysis for planning and managing growth should be expanded upon to allow flexibility in order to avoid stagnating incomplete communities and allow for appropriate development of smaller communities; • The policies related to the use of Schedule 7 forecasts and land needs analysis for planning and managing growth should be adjusted to ensure that employment numbers maintain or enhance the ratio of jobs /person to reduce commuting and stimulate the development of complete communities; 11 Page Page 171 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to January 17, 2011 Comments on Amendment 1 Clearview Township • The policies concerning land needs analysis should be amended so that the analysis and the interim settlement boundary are matters of local policy that do not require an amendment to the upper tier official plan; • Appropriate policy and accompanying legislative and regulatory amendments should be established to indicate that a municipal land needs analysis and interim settlement boundary are not subject to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; • The policies concerning land needs analysis and settlement areas should be revised to indicate that all existing approved development is to be located within the interim settlement boundary; • The policies concerning land needs analysis and settlement areas should be revised to remove the requirement that a settlement boundary expansion not be permitted until all interim settlement boundaries are equal to settlement area boundaries; • The policies concerning land needs analysis and settlement areas should be amended to allow settlement expansions in conjunction with an adjustment to interim settlement boundaries; • Amendment 1 should be revised to expand its applicability to the entire Golden Horseshoe to ensure that the application of land needs analysis and settlement area policies achieve policy objectives and are applied consistently and fairly across the entire area of the Growth Plan; and, • The existing transition regulations for the Growth Plan should be maintained and applied to Amendment 1 to maintain a fair and consistent approach. BACKGROUND: Growth Forecasts (6.2) Growth numbers and implications: The proposed Amendment 1 allocates the upper -tier forecasts to local municipalities. We have previously commented on the numerous flaws associated with the original upper -tier only forecast and pre- occupation with numbers versus good design and planning, however those forecasts are now established as governing policy. • Amendment 1 sets out specific lower -tier growth targets for Simcoe County. This detailed Provincial directive and involvement in growth distribution at the lower tier is unique to the County of Simcoe. Amendment 1 proposes a population forecast increase of 5,100 people from 2006 to 2031 for Clearview. This is substantially below the Township's approved Official Plan, the Township's adopted Growth Strategy (Directions for Growth), the Development Charges Background Study, the approved servicing EAs, and the County adopted Official Plan. It is also significantly lower than the amount of growth which would result from applications with approvals and additional applications submitted prior to the Growth Plan as well as the amount 21 Page Page 172 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to January 17, 2011 Comments on Amendment 1 Clearview Township of growth potential within existing approved settlement boundaries and lands designated for urban uses. • This radical downward adjustment in growth expectations would have significant negative implications to public and private investments that have relied upon previous expectations and policy. • A lowering of growth expectations would require alterations to virtually all municipal policy and planning documents including, but not limited to the Official Plan, Comprehensive Zoning By- law, Strategic Plan, Development Charges By -law, servicing EAs for Nottawa and Stayner, Recreational Master Plan, Roads Needs Study and the municipal budget (annual and long- term). • The reduced growth allocation would also impact planned capital projects including committed as well as planned projects. For example, the recently completed servicing agreement between Clearview and Wasaga Beach to service Stayner may have to be adjusted or even abandoned resulting in the loss of existing investments as well as costs to establish a new servicing solution. Similarly, the new emergency hub in Stayner currently under construction would be substantially underfunded relative to anticipated development contributions to both capital and operating costs. • The Development Charges By -law would require immediate revision as both capital cost projections and resulting DC charges would have to be adjusted to reflect reduced growth. • The adjustment to growth expectations would have an immediate budgetary implication in regard to the costs of revising all of the municipal policy and planning documents, as well as dealing with all of the anticipated litigation costs associated with removing development approvals and down designating lands. This has the potential to result in costly OMB hearings and possible court challenges. It is not anticipated that a downward adjustment in growth expectations would lower municipal servicing costs. In fact, it is likely that servicing levels would be reduced, but per resident costs would be higher. For example, in regard to staffing levels, there are relative few costs that are discretionary or would be impacted by lowering growth expectations. Growth levels would still exceed historic levels. Therefore, it is not expected that workloads would be reduced from current levels. Indeed, workloads would be substantially higher in the short-term with respect to litigation and the work involved in amending planning and policy documents. Additionally, while the Province is reducing growth expectations, it is increasing municipal management responsibilities in areas such as source water protection, energy management and financial management. Service expectations with respect to recreation, public works and day to day municipal management are not expected to decline and would in fact continue to grow at a rate greater than the historic average. The effect of lowered growth expectations would be that economies of scale with respect to delivering new and existing services may not be as achievable resulting in a potential per capita increase in costs. This is particularly true of infrastructure related costs where even small amounts of growth will require significant investments in sewer and water infrastructure. • Servicing costs have continued to increase even during the recent reduction in growth and development resulting from difficult economic conditions. This is a result of increased mandatory servicing due to Provincial initiatives (e.g. servicing standards, new programs), as 31 Page Page 173 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to January 17, 2011 Comments on Amendment 1 Clearview Township well as altered requirements and expectations associated with growth and changing demographics. This is expected to continue but with less growth to assist in "spreading the costs" or an inability to realize economies of scale. • A lowering of growth expectations will have detrimental impacts on private investments. Extensive investments in land and development applications have already been made on the basis of existing policies and longstanding expectations of growth and development. The significant delay, or even removal, of development potential will have a costly impact on existing investments and will also act to limit future investment. • A reduction in public and private sector investment may also limit innovation and the opportunity to improve community access to affordable housing, housing choices and new community facilities (public and private) that accompany growth with sufficient economies of scale to offer such features. • The development community is facing potential restrictions on growth including new limitations on approved applications and lands previously identified as being available for development. At the same time demands for enhanced services and amenities as well as affordability continue to increase. Lowered growth expectations will reduce opportunities for economies of scale in meeting servicing costs as well as increased development costs. This will act to further increase the cost of housing. • The effect of lower growth numbers will also be accentuated in smaller municipalities. While a population difference of a few thousand at a regional scale or in a large urban centre will not necessarily jeopardize the sustainability of the required servicing investments, a similar reduction in a smaller municipality will have a much greater impact and may make such growth unsustainable. Employment opportunities: • The policy approach and wording with regard to population and employment forecasts are basically the same, however, verbal responses of the Provincial staff with regard to how each of these various forecasts are to be treated differ markedly. Residential forecasts are effectively to be treated as targets which are not to be exceeded. Employment forecasts, on the other hand, are referred to more as guidelines and that even a development which exceeds the forecast should "be welcomed with open arms ". However, there is absolutely no such differentiation in the written policy requirements. The policy requirements effectively set a very clear limit on, and barrier to, employment growth with very serious and counter - productive consequences. • Amendment 1 proposes to increase employment by only 700 jobs between 2006 and 2031. Therefore, according to the proposed Provincial approach, the Township should plan for less employment over the next twenty five years — completely contradictory to many objectives of the Growth Plan and, hopefully, our national, provincial and local economic development objectives. According to the Provincial methodology we had 0.3 jobs per resident in 1996 and we should plan for only 0.26 jobs per resident by 2031. • Such an approach would suggest that the Township should encourage an even greater level of commuting. Instead, employment growth should be planned to at least match population 41 Page Page 174 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to January 17, 2011 Comments on Amendment 1 Clearview Township growth. It would be more desirable for employment growth rates to exceed population growth to reduce existing commuting dependencies. Five Year Reviews: • The growth forecasts for Amendment 1 are to be reviewed every five years. Given that Amendment 1 may be established prior to the completion of the currently scheduled review of the growth forecasts in the original Growth Plan, a significant synchronization issue arises with forecasts being as much as five years out -of -date. The growth forecasts reviews of the original Growth Plan and Amendment 1 should logically be undertaken at the same time. Land Needs Analysis and Settlement Areas (6.3.2 and 6.33) • The land needs analysis effectively converts growth forecasts (for both residents and employment) to targets which are not to be exceeded. • This approach is fundamentally flawed in that it relies upon an assumption that all land which is designated for growth will actually be available for growth. It also does not account for supply and demand economics. • The identification of the amount of land required to accommodate growth should incorporate a reasonable allowance for uptake and availability to account for the fact that the designation of lands for development does not equate to development actually occurring, particularly within specific timeframes. • A restriction on the supply of land to a level equivalent to anticipated demand will also have the effect of increasing the cost of developable lands and therefore the cost of housing as well as employment areas. In many instances, a restriction on the supply of developable land also reduces the number of development sites and developers, concentrating the market into fewer providers. This has the potential to further increase costs as competition is reduced. Consumer choices in regard to the housing opportunities and prices will be reduced. A much more tightly controlled supply will interfere with the benefits of a free market economy in regard to consumer choice and pricing. • The proposed interim settlement boundary leads to a more complex and costly development control process. Additional administration and approvals at both the upper and lower tier will be required for even minor adjustments to the interim boundary. Those processes will involve fees and additional time to the approvals phase of development projects. This will lead to increased costs for municipalities, applicants, and home buyers. • A proposal to require lapsing of approved plans and phasing of approved development ignores the substantial public and private investments made in such approvals and the municipal and private financial planning which would be severely compromised by such unprecedented actions. For example, registered plans may already have pre -sold lots and will certainly have significant investments made with respect to engineering, roads, water and sewers and other services. Imposing long -term phasing on such plans may result in bankrupting developers and individual lot owners. The development approvals process is lengthy and costly and it is wasteful to abandon those investments by forcing draft approvals to lapse. 51 Page Page 175 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to January 17, 2011 Comments on Amendment 1 Clearview Township • The requirement that all lands beyond the interim settlement boundary be fully developed prior to the expansion of a settlement boundary will also result in faulty planning and municipal management. Growth may be directed to less desirable locations simply to achieve this objective without consideration of determining where growth is more desirable in a particular settlement area, or amongst settlement areas, within a municipality. • The concept of a dual settlement boundary is also problematic with respect to inherent policy conflicts. The use of an interim settlement boundary effectively requires planning for a longer period of time than is permitted by Provincial policy. The lands beyond the interim settlement boundary will effectively be planned for over a period which exceeds twenty years. • Although there are restrictions to the ability to appeal a settlement boundary, no similar restrictions have been suggested with regard to the equally contentious determination of the location of the interim settlement boundary. Given that the interim settlement boundary, for all practical purposes, prohibits development for an extensive period of time (in excess of twenty years) it is readily apparent that land owners and development interests will appeal these decisions. These appeals will be to both local and upper -tier plans under the current framework and can be expected to occur when the boundaries are first created and following any amendment. This will result in repeated costly litigation. • The interim settlement boundary is an awkward and inefficient policy construct made necessary only by the Province's lack of willingness to respect existing development approvals and associated public and private investments. It creates additional unnecessary costs and procedures with no significant benefit. The lands impacted by these proposed policies have been properly designated and planned for development, do not result in a loss of agricultural lands or environmental features, have gone through public processes and approvals to achieve development approval status, and, in many cases, have already been invested in by the private and public sector to support well designed, responsible growth. The only purpose of this tool is to attempt to artificially restrict a municipality to an unreasonably limited amount of population growth. Effective Date and Transition • The proposed transition regulation should have been provided for comment in conjunction with the proposed amendment as the transition provisions will have very significant implications with respect to the application of the proposed policies. • The consultation documents suggest that the existing regulation, O. Reg. 311/06, would be amended so that any application where no decision has been made prior to the effective date of the amendment would be subject to the policies of the Growth Plan. • This is a significant departure from the previous transition regulation and the principles of fairness and confidence in the legislation and policies in effect at time of making public and private investment decisions. • It is unclear if the amendment to the transition regulations would affect all of the Greater Golden Horseshoe or just the area affected by Amendment 1. If the former, there will have been no effective consultation on such a proposal outside the area impacted by Amendment 1. - - 61 Page Page 176 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to January 17, 2011 Comments on Amendment 1 Clearview Township If the latter, the effect would be to establish an inequity with respect to transitional matters within the Growth Plan area. Such an inequity would be compounded by the fact that for approximately five years a different set of transition regulations will have applied to applications affected by the same circumstances (timing of application and applicable transition circumstances). There is significant potential for the transition regulations to be unfair. • The proposed manner of dealing with transition matters (i.e. suggesting that any applications which pre -date the effective date of the amendment and where a decision has been made would not be subject to the policies of the Growth Plan) is also inconsistent with policies of the proposed Amendment 1. For example, the requirement to establish an interim settlement boundary and then phase or even remove prior development approvals lying outside such a settlement boundary, would be in direct conflict with the proposed transition regulation. Obviously, approved developments (i.e. decisions already made) lying outside of the interim settlement boundary would not be subject to Amendment 1 and its requirements. This would result in the interim settlement boundary having no purpose or effect with respect to approved development. It would only have an impact on lands on which no decisions have been made. • The wording with respect to this very critical distinguishing transitional factor is vague with respect to referring simply to "where no decision has been made ". It is unclear whether, for example, a decision with respect to an official plan amendment would be the adoption by Council orthe approval by the approval authority. Similarly, is a decision regarding one component of a development approval (e.g. draft plan approval) sufficient to allow for subsequent implementing approvals (e.g. zoning amendment, internal condominium blocks, site plan approvals). • It is also unclear whether or not a reliance on amending the current regulation would result in a further set of applications being "grandfathered ". Currently applications must pre -date the existing Growth Plan to be "grandfathered ". The discussion of effective date and transition in the consultation document suggests that this key date would now be moved forward to the effective date of "any amendment ". This could result in an even greater disconnect between the established population targets and the amount of development in "grandfathered ", or transitioned, applications and approvals. 71 Page Page 177 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... Corporation of the Township of Essa 5786 County Road 21 Utopia, Ontario LOM I TO Telephone: (706).424-9770 Fax: (705) 424 -2367 Web Site: www.essatownship.on.ca Where Tbwn and Co u n try Meet January 24, 2011 Ontario Growth Secretariat Ministry of Infrastructure 777 Bay Street, 4' Floor, Suite 425 Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 Attn: Ms. Tija Dirks Ref: Township of Essa Comments with Respect to: "Proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 - October 2010 Dear Ms. Dirks: File #210199 Please find attached hereto our response to Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, issued in October 2010. In addition to these comments, we have several concerns which we believe need to be addressed. These are as follows: 1. Intensification Targets The implementation section of the Growth Plan Amendment No. 1 provides for an Alternate Intensification Target for the Township of Essa of 20 %. While we are supportive of the concept, we have concerns that our land base may be insufficient to meet this target and we request that additional time and /or allowance for reaching the target be provided. 2. CFB Borden Canadian Forces Base Borden population is incorporated within the Township's census population. Population levels and growth within the base does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Township and, thus, this population should not be applicable to the Township. We request that the Township population growth not be inhibited by the population and future growth of the Base. Interim Settlement Area Boundary Essa has concerns relating to the imposition of the Interim Settlement Area Boundary particularly when we have been diligently and responsibly growing at a moderate pace within the settlement area of Angus. Essa has invested considerable amounts of money and Page 1 of 2 Page 178 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to infrastructure into its communities and additional growth to ensure that investments are protected and debts can be repaid without burdening the existing taxpayers should be permitted. 4. Financial Assistance Resulting from the issuance of Places to Grow and the County of Simcoe revised Official Plan, many municipalities entered into planning programs to update their Official Plans to bring them into conformity with the stated time lines. With the Provincial concerns relating to the County Official Plan, the issuance of the Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth and Growth Plan Amendment No. 1, much of this past work may be invalid and, at a minimum, be revisited. As these planning programs proceeded in good faith and any voiding of the work done is not attributable to the local municipalities, it is considered reasonable for the Province to provide financial assistance in the development of the planning programs. Further, with the imposition of the population ceilings, interim settlement area boundaries, etc. the municipalities face the potential for significant financial expenditures to defend Provincial policy if legal challenges occur. As such, it should be the responsibility of the Province to step in and provide financial assistance. Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to comment on this significant Provincial approach to planning in Simcoe County. Yours truly, -- 1k, Terry Dowdall Mayor TOWNSHIP OF ESSA T.121019911ettersl210199 Jan -24 -11 -Elsa letter.doc Page 2 of 2 Page 179 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to PLACES TO GROW RESPONSE TO PROPOSED "AMENDMENT NO. 1 (2010)" TO THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE 2006 TOWNSHIP OF ESSA JANUARY 2011 AINLEY GROUP Consulting Engineers and Planners 550 Welham Road Barrie, ON L4N 8Z7 Telephone: 705 - 726 -3371 Facsimile: 705- 726 -4391 E -mail: barrie ainleygroup.com File #210199 December 2010 Page 180 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to PLACES TO GROW RESPONSE TO PROPOSED "AMENDMENT NO. 1 (2010)" TO THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE 2006 TOWNSHIP OF ESSA JANUARY 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... ..............................1 2.0 INPUT ON TECHNICAL AND POLICY ISSUES ....................................... ..............................1 2.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................... ..............................2 2.1.1 Determination of Interim Settlement Area Boundary ( ISAB) ..................... ..............................2 2.2 Implementation Issues .............................................................................. ..............................3 2.2.1 Extension to Deadline for Comments ....................................................... ..............................3 2.2.2 Appointment of a Hearing Officer ............................................................ ..............................4 2.2.3 Deadline for Implementation and Conformity ......................................... ..............................4 2.2.4 Population and Employment Allocations ................................................. ..............................5 2.2.5 Alternative Density and Intensification Targets ........................................ ..............................6 2.2.6 Financial Implications .............................................................................. ..............................6 2.2.7 Transition Matters — Transition Regulation O.Reg 311/ 06 ........................ ..............................7 3.0 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... ..............................7 Places to Grow Response to Proposed Amendment Township of Essa Ainley Group File #210199 December 2010 Page 181 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to PLACES TO GROW RESPONSE TO PROPOSED "AMENDMENT NO. 1 (2010)" TO THE GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE 2006 TOWNSHIP OF ESSA JANUARY 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Township of Essa has reviewed in detail the Province's proposed vision for the Simcoe Sub -Area as contained in the discussion paper "Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth" dated June 2009 in the context of the principles contained in the Growth Plan, the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, and in the context of the proposed County of Simcoe Official Plan. On October 28, 2010, the Minister of Infrastructure, Honourable Bob Chiarelli, released the Proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the Simcoe Sub -Area (GPA1). The Minister provided a 95 day consultation period for the submission of comments on the Proposed GPA1. The deadline is January 31, 2011. The following submission of the Township of Essa in response to the Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 for the Simcoe Sub - Area. 2.0 INPUT ON TECHNICAL AND POLICY ISSUES The Township of Essa has reviewed Proposed Amendment No. 1 and has certain concerns with the Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 for the Simcoe Sub -Area. The Proposed GPA1 is the most significant Provincial foray into local planning in two decades and, as currently proposed, would have significant impacts on the planning in Simcoe County and the Township of Essa. In addition, the Ministry has requested in the amendment and implementation tools document, comments on a range of policy and technical issues The following sections set out our response: Places to Grow Response to Proposed Amendment 1 Township of Essa Ainley Group File #210199 December 2010 Page 182 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to 2.1 The Amendment 2.1.1 Determination of Interim Settlement Area Boundary (ISAB) Section 6.3.3.1 of the Proposed GPA1 requires that the County, in consultation with the lower -tier municipalities, delineate an interim settlement area boundary (ISAB) in the County Official Plan within each settlement area lands that are in excess of what is needed based on the population and employment allocations. The ISAB must be no larger than is needed to accommodate the forecasted growth to 2031 and meets a series of other policy criteria set out in the Proposed GPA1. We believe that this requirement is too restrictive, reflects a level of Provincial involvement in local land use planning that is not required, and is not the best policy solution to the issue at hand. The current proposal would require, for even minor adjustments to the ISAB including to correct errors, an amendment to the local Official Plan, an Amendment to the County Official Plan, a full Municipal Comprehensive Review and a Provincial planning review and approval process. This process could take up to two years. We, therefore, recommend as follows a more elegant solution to the policy issue that the Province was trying to address with Section 6.3.3: 1. The requirement to delineate and designate the ISAB in the County Official Plan should be deleted and replaced by a detailed policy around ISAB's and that requires the County to establish a policy framework for the delineation of the ISAB in its Official Plan. 2. The ISAB would then be delineated and designated in the local Official Plan in accordance with the policy framework in the GPA1 and the County Official Plan and must be approved by the County. 3. The policy framework would require a full Municipal Comprehensive Review for expansions of the ISAB based on new population and employment allocations; but would permit revisions and adjustments of the ISAB based on the current allocation through a scoped comprehensive review. 4. Similar to the Planning Act provision which indicates that applications for Settlement Area boundary expansions that are Places to Grow Ainley Group Response to Proposed Amendment 2 file #210199 Township of Essa December 2010 Page 183 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to refused by Council are not appealable to the OMB, we request that a similar provision be applied to the ISAB. We understand that this may require either a change of the Planning Ad or an interpretation that Section 22 (7.2) applies equally to an ISAB. By making this change, the Province would be transferring local decision making and local choices regarding the ISAB to the local level (subject to County approval) and making the determination and delineation of the ISAB an approvals process between the County and the individual municipality. This solution is one that makes a lot of sense at the local planning level and for the Province as well. The County currently has over 90 settlement areas and many of these will require ISAB's. As the determination and delineation of ISAB's will require difficult choices between different lands, there is a significant chance that these decisions will be appealed to the OMB. If the delineation of ISAB's remains a requirement of the County Official Plan, the Province will be involved in each and every one of these appeals at potentially significant cost to the public purse. 2.2 Implementation Issues 2.2.1 Extension to Deadline for Comments The Ministry has provided a 95 day consultation period for the submission of comments on the Proposed GPA1; to January 31, 2011. The Provinces EBR posting of the proposed Amendment notes that comments should be posted no later than January 26, 2011. While in normal times, a 95 day consultation period may be sufficient, in the current period there is not enough time for the impacted municipalities and communities to adequately assess and respond to the GPA1. With the municipal election on October 25' 2010 and the long transition period, the new Councils (and in particular the brand new Councillors) will not have enough time to get up to speed on this highly complex planning policy. While it is the intention of the Township of Essa to meet the commenting deadline, the Township of Essa requests the Minister to provide more time and opportunities to review proposed Growth Plan Amendment No. 1. We, therefore, request an extension to February 28, 2011. Places to Grow Response to Proposed Amendment 3 Township of Essa Ainley Group File #210199 December 2010 Page 184 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to 2.2.2 Appointment of a Hearing Officer When a proposed growth plan has been prepared, the Minister is required to ensure that notice is given informing the public of the proposed plan and inviting written submissions on the proposed plan within the time period specified. The Minister may confer with any person, public body or other body that he considers may have an interest in the proposed plan. In our opinion, the operative word in the legislation is "public ". Section 7 (3) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005 permits the Minister to appoint a Hearing Officer to conduct one or more hearings within the area to which the proposed plan applies to the purpose of receiving representations respecting the proposed plan or any part of the proposed plan or any matter relating to the proposed plan that has been specified by the Minister. The Township of Essa hereby requests the Minister to appoint a Hearing Officer pursuant to Section 7 (3) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005 in order to provide an independent and objective review of the proposed Amendment and an independent and objective assessment of the concerns and changes identified by the municipalities and residents of the Simcoe Sub -Area. This would meet the tests of Section 7 of the Places to Grow Act, 2005 with respect to consulting the "public ". By appointing a Hearing Officer, the Minister can ensure that he is receiving the input and advice that he needs to make a decision on the Proposed GPA1 that is in the best interests of the residents and the municipalities of the Simcoe Sub -Area and in the best interests of the Province of Ontario. A Hearing Officer will ensure the highest level of integrity in the process and in the maintenance of the goals and objectives of the award winning Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 2.2.3 Deadline for Implementation and Conformity The Proposed GPA1 states that the Minister "will consider setting an alternative date of less than 3 years for the Official Plan for the County, City of Barrie, City of Orillia and lower tier municipalities to be brought into conformity with the Amendment ". Places to Grow Response to Proposed Amendment 4 Township of Essa Ainley Group File #210199 December 2010 Page 185 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to The Township of Essa recommends a two stage implementation approach to the Proposed GPA1. Two dates should be established; one for the County Official Plan and one for local Official Plans. As the date of the final approval of the GPA1 and the OMB decision respecting the County Official Plan is not known at this time, we recommend that local Official Plans be brought into conformity with the GPA1 within one (1) year following the County Official Plan coming into effect. There is significant time, effort and resources required to bring our local Official Plans into conformity with the Growth Plan (as amended) and with the County Official Plan. We have already spent considerable dollars in a conformity exercise that may no longer be useable. By setting a conformity date for local Official Plans based on the approval date of the County Official Plan, the Province can bring a level of certainty to the planning system in the County of Simcoe that has not existed for almost two years. 2.2.4 Population and Employment Allocations The Township of Essa recognizes that the population and employment allocations are not fixed and will be reviewed at least every five years in accordance with the Section 2.2.1.2 of the Growth Plan and may be revised. The Township of Essa recommends that the Province review and update the forecasts every five years and make a concerted effort to strengthen the urban structure of Simcoe County. We understand that the Province has already initiated the review of the forecasts contained in Schedule 3 to the Growth Plan. In light of the fact that 2011 will be the five year anniversary of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, we also strongly recommend that the Province update Schedule 7 to the Growth Plan at the same time that it updates Schedule 3 and that the .updates of both tables be placed on the same schedule. This will make sure that the planning for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is done in a comprehensive manner. Places to Grow Ainley Group Response to Proposed Amendment 5 File #210199 Township of Essa December 2010 Page 186 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to 2.2.5 Alternative Density and Intensification Targets The Minister has proposed alternative minimum intensification targets and minimum density targets for designated Greenfield areas for the Simcoe Sub - Area. The proposed alternative targets as set out in Table 1 in the Implementation section of the Proposed GPA1 document are the targets as recommended by the County of Simcoe. While there will be challenges in achieving these targets, the Township is committed to moving their planning program forward to meet these Growth Plan targets as best as we can. 2.2.6 Financial Implications Growth planning, and the determination of population and employment allocations, have significant impacts beyond just the narrow land use planning field. Municipalities rely on population and employment allocations in their capital works programs and in their development charge studies and by -laws and the changes to the allocations between the adopted County Official Plan, the Vision document and now the Proposed GPA1 have had, and will have, serious consequences. It is important that the Province understands that much of the planning done at the local level relies on these population and employment allocations and that the changing nature of these allocations have resulted in direct and real costs to the local municipalities. In addition, it is important that the Province understand that the release of the Vision document, the delay in the County Official Plan approval, and its subsequent appeal to the OMB, and the significant delays in the release of the Proposed GPA1 have also had significant cost implications on the Township's planning program. We, therefore, request that the Province consider a financial assistance program to offset the additional costs that have and will be incurred as a direct result of the Province's decision to become directly and intimately involved in population and employment allocation planning at the local level in the Simcoe Sub -Area. Places to Grow Ain ley Group Response to Proposed Amendment 6 File 4210199 Township of Essa December 2010 Page 187 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to 2.2.7 Transition Matters — Transition Regulation O.Reg 311106 Ontario Regulation 311/06 was made in June of 2006 by the Minister pursuant to Section 19 of the Places to Grow Act, 2005 to address transitional matters respecting the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. As noted in the GPA1 document, "Any application commenced, but where no decision has been made prior to the effective date of any amendment, would be subject to the policies of the Growth Plan, as amended ". This would be subject to any applicable regulation released by the Minister on transitional matters. It is our position that since any transition regulation for the Proposed GPA1 could have significant impacts on "in process" applications, a draft of the regulation should be provided to the member municipalities of the Simcoe Sub -Area for review and comment prior to coming into effect. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS The Province is proposing, in the Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, to establish an urban structure for the Simcoe Sub -Area that will focus growth and intensification in a sustainable manner within a network of complete urban communities. The Township trusts that the Province will seriously consider its comments and input on the Proposed Amendment No. 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, and will make the additional changes recommended. We believe that the changes requested are in keeping with the principals of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, principles of smart growth, and in keeping with the Province's program of a policy led local land use planning system. T ;2107 991Reportsl2 707 99- Places to Grow Response - Dec - 147 0 -report. doc Places to Grow Response to Proposed Amendment 7 Township of Essa Ainley Group File #210199 December 2010 Page 188 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN P.O. Box 159, Orillia, Ontario, L3V 6J3 Municipal Office: 1024 Hurlwood Lane Telephone: (705) 325 -2315 Fax: (705) 327 -5818 January 27, 2011 The Honourable Rick Bartolucci Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing 2 nd Floor 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 The Honorable Bob Chiarelli Minister of Infrastructure 5 th Floor, Mowat Block 900 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 1 C2 Dear: Ministers Bartolucci and Chiarelli Re: Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Township of Severn has carefully consider and reviewed the proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and as directed by resolution of Severn Township Council would respectfully advise that the Township has ten (10) issues that your Ministers need to be aware of and address as follows: The Ministry has provided a 95 day consultation period for the submission of comments on the Proposed GPA1 with a deadline of January 31, 2011. In normal circumstances a 95 day consultation period may be sufficient but with the Municipal Election on October 25, 2010 and the transition period for new Councils, the deadline does not allow enough time for new Council Members to be up to speed on this highly complex planning policy. With the consultation period extending through the Christmas season, municipalities had little opportunity to engage their communities in developing comments. While it is recognized that it is important to continue to move the process ahead, the Township requests that more time and more opportunities for the review of the proposed GPA1 and for public input be provided. Notwithstanding the request for an extension, the Township is making a submission within the commenting deadline to ensure that our comments are considered by the Minister prior to any decision on GPA1. Page 189 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to -3_ 2. That the Province be requested to understand that the Amendment will lead to significant costs associated with delineating the Interim Settlement Boundary and defending those decisions at the Ontario Municipal Board. This would be a direct cost associated with implementing a Provincial policy. 3. It is requested that the Province consider financial assistance to offset the additional costs that have been and will be incurred as a direct result of the Province's decision to become directly and intimately involved in population and employment allocations and settlement area boundary planning at the local level. 4. The Township is of the opinion that the requirement of Interim Settlement Boundary (ISB) is too restrictive, and this level of Provincial involvement in local land use planning is not required. The current proposal would require, for even minor adjustments to the ISB such as correcting errors, an amendment to the local Official Plan, an amendment to the County Official Plan, a full Municipal Comprehensive Review and a Provincial planning review and approval process. This process could take up to two years and add significant financial costs and strain to the system. 5. That the Township of Severn recommends a more efficient and less cumbersome solution to the policy issue such as the following: The requirement to delineate and designate the ISB in the County Official Plan should be replaced with a detailed policy around ISBs which requires the County to establish a flexible policy framework for the delineation of ISBs in its Official Plan. Similar to the Planning Act provision which indicates that applications for Settlement Area boundary expansions which are refused by Council are not appealable to the OMB, the Township requests that a similar provision be applied to the ISB. Making these changes, the Province would be allowing local decision making and local choices regarding the ISB (subject to County approval) and making the determination and delineation of the ISB an approval process between the County and the individual Municipality. 6. That the Province acknowledge that municipalities with a significant seasonal population may have many of these converted to permanent dwelling units, resulting in a net loss to the growth allocation. It is recommended that seasonal unit conversions not be included in the growth allocation. 7. That the Township of Severn requests that no further downward changes be made to its population allocation. Page 190 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to -3- 8. It is recommended that a Hearing Officer be appointed to deal with the many ongoing issues with respect to GPA1. The appointment of a Hearing Officer may resolve some of the concerns expressed by local governments and citizens. 9. The Growth Plan and GPA1 utilize population forecasts as "ceilings to restrict growth when they should be used as guidelines to manage growth ". The result is a "planning by numbers" implementation approach to growth management which conflicts with and undermines the sound land use planning and growth management principles contained in the Planning Act, the PPS, the County Official Plan and the Township Official Plan. 10. In the interests of stimulating investment opportunities, job creation, diversified economies, improved assessment ratios and complete communities where people can live and work, planning policies at all levels should encourage and support employment opportunities, not restrict them. Therefore, the employment forecasts should not be utilized as a ceiling rather they should be removed from the GP (Schedule 3) and GPA1 (Schedule 7). The Growth Plan should not restrict employment opportunities but encourage them. On behalf of the Township of Severn I would like to thank you for your consideration of the above noted comments. If you have any questions with respect to the above -noted matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully Aubmitted , V15 Mike Burkett „p Mayor c.c. County of Simcoe Municipalities Bruce Stanton, M.P., Simcoe North Garfield Dunlop, M.P.P., Simcoe North Tija Dirks, Director — Ministry of Energy Jim Wilson, M.P.P., Simcoe Grey Julie Monroe, M.P.P., York Simcoe Cal Patterson, Warden, County of Simcoe Mark Aitken, CAO, County of Simcoe Rick Newlove, General Manager Corporate Services, County of Simcoe Bryan Mackell, Director of Planning & Development, County of Simcoe Page 191 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... Q E o January 26, 2011 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ADJALA- TOSORON`I'IO 7855 Sideroad 30 , R.R. #1 e Alliston, Ontario ^ L911 IVI Telephone: (705) 434 -5055 Fax: (705) 434 -5051 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Hon. Bob Chiarelli Minister of Infrastructure 5 Th Floor, Mowat Block 900 Bay Street, M7A 2E1 Dear Ministers Chiarelli and Bartolucci, Hon Rick Bartolucci Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 777 Bay Street, 17 Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 RE: Comments on the Proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Simcoe Sub -area Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Province, County of Simcoe and Township of Adjala - Tosorontio have a joint responsibility to ensure that the residents of Adjala- Tosorontio enjoy a balance of growth, a strong community, efficient use of infrastructure and the preservation of natural and agricultural resources for future needs of our residents and businesses. We wish to work cooperatively with all levels of government to ensure that all principles and policies of the Places to Grow Growth Plan are molded to our mutual best advantage and implemented with all fairness on behalf of our residents. On October 28, 2010, the Province released a draft of its long awaited Amendment No. 1 to the Simcoe Sub Area Growth Plan which represents a significant policy initiative under the Places to Grow legislation (in effect June 16, 2006) with long term impacts to the Greater Golden Horseshoe and specifically to Adjala - Tosorontio Township. The Ministry is seeking comments on the Proposed Amendment with a deadline to January 31, 2011 (approximately 90 calendar days). ADJALA- TOSORONTIO COMMENTS UNDER THE SIMCOE GROWTH PLAN The Township wishes to emphasize our concerns submitted to the Ontario Growth Secretariat on September 8, 2009 with the significant impacts that the proposed Simcoe Area: Strategic Vision for Growth (SASVG) will have on the sustainability of our Township. These include: 1. Population and employment allocation caps required under the SASVG will reduce our historic 2% growth rate to 0.7 %, the latter of which is considered unsustainable. This rate of growth effectively halts development in Adjala - Tosorontio, places an economic burden on our municipality and puts our residents under financial risk. We urge the Province and the County to agree to provide sufficient population and employment allocation to enable a sustainable rate of growth for the Township. 2. Adjala - Tosorontio Township is at the cusp of offering its residents full servicing in the communities of Colgan and Everett with subdivision developments which are now OMB approved, in advance of the Source Water Protection requirements. Full municipal water and wastewater treatment is the preferred method of servicing under Section 1.6.4.2 of Page 192 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to 2 the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) in preparation for intensification. The proposed population growth caps introduced by the Province, threatens to freeze these developments which will have the effect of returning the reliance of its existing residents to individual septic and well over the long term. The development community needs sufficient allocation in order to make the subdivisions financially viable, as required by the PPS (Section 1.6.4.1). Such servicing will help enable the Township to offer these water /wastewater services to rural hamlet residents thus enabling them to become `complete' rural communities. We urge the Province to provide sufficient allocation to enable the Township to offer Colgan and Everett residents full water/ wastewater servicing and full cost recovery by developers in accordance with the requirements of Places to Grow, the Provincial Policy Statement and Clean Water Act (Sourcewater Protection). 3. Rural retirement and infill lots represent a significant proportion of undeveloped lots in the Township which threatens to use up precious allocation but does not create the potential for cost recovery of new infrastructure as would proposed subdivision development. There is also uncertainty in determining when these infill lots would potentially come forward prior to 2031. OMB - approved subdivisions are ready to move forward so long as the Province provides sufficient population allocation. We urge the Province to provide a separate status to existing infill /retirement lots in Adjala- Tosorontio so as not to interfere with allocation set for subdivision growth which will bring much - needed infrastructure and contribute to fewer septics adjacent to municipal wells under Sourcewater Protection. 4. One of the guiding principals of the SASVG (Section 2d) was to encourage municipalities to promote economic development, competitiveness and diversify their economic base (Section 2.2.6b). It will be extremely difficult for the Township to meet the requirement of these principles with an allocation of only 200 jobs over the life of the Growth Plan (ave 8 -10 jobs per year for the entire municipality). The Township is unsure of the reason for any proposed employment caps during a time of recession recovery that the Province is facing at this time. We urge the Province to amend its employment allocations (if indeed caps are necessary) of only 200 jobs to 2031 for the Township to a minimum of 500 jobs to 2031 which represent the County's employment projection, in order to permit a diversified and sustainable economy for the Township. 5. Hwy 89 is an existing 4 -lane Provincial highway that is central to the Township and represents a high - volume established truck route from the GTA and a western gateway to Simcoe County and the Alliston Urban Node. The County had previously approved an Official Plan designation change for these lands in Adjala- Tosorontio to permit an Employment Corridor that could potentially service Alliston, Base Borden and surrounding area. Given its strategic commercial location and 'commercial- ready' highway not requiring additional infrastructure as required in Sections 3.2.4 Places to Grow and Section 4.4 of the SASVG, the Township considers this stretch of lands to be optimum for an economic Employment District. However, the Province has not provided the Township with sufficient employment allocation to develop these lands. For instance, should one new employer (e.g. parts manufacturer in support of the Honda Plant) locate in Adjala - Tosorontio's Employment Corridor, it could potentially use up the Township's entire 20 -year employment allocation. We note that the Province has proposed Economic Nodes in Amendment No. 1 in locations where the infrastructure does not appear to be 'commercial ready', contrary to the Sections noted above. The Township therefore requests that an Employment (Industrial/Commercial District) Node be Page 193 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to established along County Road #50 /Highway 89 west of the Alliston Node in compliance with Section 3.4.4.3a of the SASVG. Further, the Township requests it be provided with sufficient employment allocation to develop the approved Employment Corridor in Adjala - Tosorontio. We would request that the Province consider the above -noted requests on behalf of the residents of Adjala - Tosorontio Township which will help the Municipality continue to be a sustainable, strong and thriving rural community in the County of Simcoe within the region of Southern Ontario. COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT NO.1 OF THE SIMCOE SUBAREA In addition to the previously noted concerns, the Township has significant concerns regarding the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Simcoe Sub -area to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006) as noted below: Revised Ponulation Allocation (Schedule 7) We note that the Township of Adjala- Tosorontio has received the smallest population allocation in South Simcoe County by a significant margin; (the next smallest allocation in South Simcoe has twice the allocation that was given Adjala- Tosorontio) and one of the few rural Simcoe County municipalities that did not see any increase in population allocation as established by Schedule 7 of Amendment No. 1. How were the amended population forecasts arrived at and what was their justification? It appears that the municipalities that did receive increased population allocation are located in regions with potentially significant environmentally sensitive lands (e.g. Town of Innisfil on the Lake Simcoe watershed and Wasaga Beach, Tiny and Tay Townships on the Georgian Bay watershed) which does not appear to follow the Guiding Principal (2b) of the Simcoe Area: Strategic Vision for Growth (page 7). The Township would request a copy of the supporting documentation and justification for the change in allocation distribution. We further request that the Province consider a minimum allocation of 3,100 persons and a minimum employment allocation of 500 jobs to 2031, as adopted by the County of Simcoe in their Official Plan, to provide economically sustainable growth for the Township. In addition, we request that when the update to Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan (to occur on June 16, 2011, in accordance with legislation) and subsequently amend Schedule 7 of Amendment No. 1 of the Simcoe Sub -Area Growth Plan to reflect the updated Schedule 3. Densitv and Intensification Density targets under the Places to Grow Growth Plan (Section 2.2.3.4) permits the County to set alternative minimum density targets for upper and single tier municipalities located in the outer ring to ensure the intensification target is appropriate given the size, location and capacity of the built -up areas. However, under Amendment No. 1, (Table 1 Proposed Alternative Targets) the Province is now specifying alternative intensification and alternative density targets. What remains then, of the status of the upper tier's permitted role to determine alternative density targets? We request the Province returns the Alternative Density Target setting responsibility to the County, which has a clearer understanding of municipal growth and balance within their jurisdiction. Page 194 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to W The Township advises that the density and intensification targets of 32 residents /jobs per ha proposed by the Province (Table 1) for the Township hamlets is significantly greater than is currently in -situ. The densities of Township hamlets currently range between 5 -10 residents per hectare and these lower densities are required due to the need for septic systems, well, snow storage, etc. Densities under the Provincial targets would put undue strain on municipal infrastructure (e.g. roads) and significantly alter the character of the existing hamlets. Further, without sufficient growth allocation to attract development which brings infrastructure, hamlet servicing would remain at well and septic system servicing level. For the reasons noted above, in our view, transit - supported densities are not appropriate for rural residential settlements in Ontario. Interim Settlement Boundaries Interim Settlement Boundaries (ISBs) were introduced in Amendment No. 1 and the Township has questions and significant concerns with the concept and implementation of this policy. Firstly, the concept assumes that there are opportunities for contiguous developments, transit and community infrastructure and a complete community already in place. These criteria apply to larger urban centres, but do not apply to all of our hamlets, which have undelineated built boundaries (see Built Boundary for the Growth Plan 2008, pg 43) which were not to be the focus of intensification (ibid, pg 18). If these criteria do not apply, how will the County, in consultation with the Township, determine where, if any the Interim Settlement Boundaries are applied? The Township requests the Province set aside time for further discussions with the County and lower tier municipalities to explore the implementation of ISBs, prior to approval of Amendment No. 1. Secondly, the Township is very concerned that should ISBs be required, they will have the effect of the Township assuming the role of an arbitrator, determining which developments would move forward and which would be held back. This has important legal implications and may put the Township at risk of being appealed to the OMB or other legal disputes. Under what authority in the Planning Act can municipalities temporarily put its approval on hold? We recommend, that should ISBs be required, that at the very least, that the Province determine ISBs to be non - appeal -able to the Ontario Municipal Board. Thirdly, under Section 6.3.3.4, both the upper and lower tier municipalities will need to illustrate the Interim Settlement Boundaries in their planning documents. Should an amendment of the ISB policy be necessary, amendment applications will need to be satisfied at both the upper tier and lower tier policy documents which appear onerous and excessive. Further, there is a requirement for a full municipal comprehensive review for changes in the ISBs whereas comprehensive reviews to the changes of settlement boundaries is already required under the Provincial Policy Statement (Settlements- Section 1.1.3.9 and Rural Areas in Municipalities - Section 1.1.4) should be sufficient. The Township requests that the Province provide justification for the requirement of the ISBs in both the County and the Township policy documents and for any changes to the ISBs. Rural Context In the context of rural communities (Section 2.1 Growth Plan for the GGH), the Plan speaks to strong, healthy and prosperous rural communities being vital to the quality of life and economic success of the GGH. The Plan recognizes and further promotes the role of towns and villages as the focus of economic, cultural and social activities. Finally, the Plan speaks to healthy rural communities being the key to vitality and well -being of the area. Page 195 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to 5 However, we fail to see how the population allocation given Adjala - Tosorontio Township (1,900 persons or 633 homes over the planning horizon at construction rate of 31 homes per year) and employment allocation (200 jobs over the planning horizon or creation of 10 jobs per year) will provide a healthy, strong or even sustainable community vitality. In addition, the development of the subdivisions in Colgan and Everett will permit the creation of sufficient population threshold to create sustainable commercial developments which contribute to the 'complete communities' principle as set out in Section 1.2 of the Simcoe Vision. We urge the Province to provide sufficient growth allocation to provide an acceptable economic vitality and quality of life for our residents as outlined above. Conformity to Local Plans The Township of Adjala - Tosorontio recommends that the conformity of the Township Official Plan to the Simcoe Sub -area Growth Plan be tied to a minimum time frame of adoption within one year from the date that the County Official Plan has been approved. We suggest that requiring conformity to the Growth Plan prior to the approval of the upper tier Official Plan will require multiple updates to the Township Official Plan and be a waste to the taxpayer. Financial ImMications to the Amendment No. 1 There are a number of financial implications that the cap on growth required by the Province would have on the Township which is of great concern. Firstly, without the growth that was intended by the Township's Growth Management Plan, there are implications that the Township's Development Charges (DCs) are in excess of what we now can legally charge on developments. The consequence may include having to reassess the rates being charged development which may have significant financial implications, especially under other Provincial programs such as PSAB. Further, the Township has undergone significant financial costs to move subdivision developments through Ontario Municipal Board. Phasing developments as proposed under Amendment No. 1, may motivate the developer to reopen Board proceedings with additional expense to the tax base. We are concerned that the Province may not be taking these financial risks to the municipality, under consideration. By capping population and employment allocation in our Township, the Province has removed the Township's ability to provide its residents and businesses with water and wastewater infrastructure that proposed subdivision development would have provided. The Township requests that the Province commit to provide the infrastructure funding shortfall that would have been secured by the Township, so that these services may be yet provided to our Township. Transitional Matters (Ontario Reaulation 311/06 The Township requests that the effective date and transitional matters be held to the requirements of O. Reg 311/06 and that no subsequent amendment to the Regulation be approved. In the alternative, the Township requests that the Province provides a time period of further consultation with local municipalities to fully understand the impact of the transitional regulations to the Township. Page 196 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to A Hearina Officer The Township notes that under Section 7(3) of the Places to Grow Act permits a Hearing Officer be appointed for the purpose of conducting one or more hearings for the purposes of receiving representations for any proposed plan in whole or in part, as specified by the Minister or to hear any proposed modifications to the Plan. The Township is not aware that the Minister has yet assigned a Hearing Officer despite the large number of issues that the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Growth Plan for the Simcoe Sub -area and Amendment No. 1 have generated. The Township would request that the Province provide a timeline as to when we could expect the Hearing Officer to be in place so that their Office could conduct a hearing and propose modifications to the Plan on behalf of the Township. ��7i•L�S���L�IiJ The Province, County of Simcoe and Township of Adjala - Tosorontio have a joint responsibility to ensure that the residents of Adjala- Tosorontio enjoy a balance of growth, a strong community, efficient use of infrastructure and the preservation of natural and agricultural resources for future needs of our residents and businesses. While we concur with the principles of the Places to Grow legislation and agree with the general direction of the Simcoe Growth Plan, under Amendment No. 1 matters of local interest enshrined in the Planning Act, have been removed from the planning process. We note that these Amendment No. 1 policies are meant to apply equally on urban and rural communities across the planning landscape yet do not translate to an equal affect on rural municipalities, where the Province has committed to build a strong rural community. As shown above, the proposed policies of Amendment No. 1 will have a significant negative impact (financial, servicing and otherwise) to the sustainability of Adjala - Tosorontio. We have asked questions and have provided comments and specific scenarios, particularly around growth caps which we hope the Province will seriously consider prior to any approval of the proposed Amendment No-1. We look forward to your response. If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to contact the undersigned at (705) 434 -5055. Si cer y, _ Im osibk MSc(PI), MC /RPP Dir for of Growth and Development To nship of Adjala - Tosorontio c. Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Council, Twp of Adjala - Tosorontio E. Wargel, CAO, Twp Adjala - Tosorontio D. Bulman, Deputy CAO & Treasurer J. Tschekalin, Director of Planning, Twp Adjala - Tosorontio G. Dunlop, MPP Simcoe North J. Wilson, MPP Simcoe Grey J. Munroe, MPP York Simcoe C. Patterson, Warden, Simcoe County M. Aitken, CAO, Simcoe County B. MacKell, Planning Director, Simcoe County Page 197 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to The Corporation of the Township of Tay 450 Park Street P.O. Box 100 Victoria Harbour Ontario LOK 2AO Phone (705) 534 -7248 Fax (705) 534 -4493 December 16 2010 Ontario Growth Secretariat Ministry of Infrastructure 777 Bay Street, 4 th Floor, Suite 425 Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 RE: Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth Dear Sir /Madame: The Township of Tay staff and Council, have reviewed the draft document "Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, October 2010, An amendment and implementation tools for the Simcoe Sub -area, and offer the following comments. We are pleased that the Ministry of Infrastructure has adopted the intensification targets and the greenfield densities proposed by the County of Simcoe. We are also pleased that the population allocation for Tay Township for 2031 was increased from 10,750 persons to 11,400 persons. However, we are still very concerned that population caps are being used at all by the Province toward building strong communities. Although we understand that as we grow consistent with the policies of the Places to Grow document, that the population allocation may be adjusted to allow for additional growth, we are concerned that other agencies and investors to our community will rely upon the population allocations as absolute population to 2031 when making decisions. The Township of Tay is already seeing the negative effects of the population cap by way of the Simcoe County District School Board approving an Accommodation Review Committee and advising that they will likely be considering dosing the Port McNicoll Public School, due in part to the forecast that enrollment in this community will continue to decline. In fact, it is the Township of Tay's position, in light of building stronger communities and our efforts with the Skyline Georgian Valley development, that employment permanent population will increase in Port McNicoll. Further, the Council of the Township of Tay has passed a resolution that focus' the majority of the population allocation to Port McNicoll. Page 198 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to The likely closing of the Port McNicoll Public School is an example of one of the unforeseen negative effects that the population allocations imposed bythe Province, will have on communities who are striving to achieve a complete community. We urge the Province to consider the potential negative consequences of their actions regarding population allocations. Further in an effort to prevent such negative consequences we ask that the Province allocation funds necessary to keep the Port McNicoll Public School in a community that desperately needs it in order to achieve the Province's own goals. Not only will the closing of this school hurt this community, but it will impair the efforts of the Province, the County and the Township to make this community complete. The closing of the Port McNicoll Public School will also increase busing to the neighbouring public school in Victoria Harbour, which requires the use of Highway 12, further increasing air pollution and congestion on the highways. This unforeseen effect of population allocation is precisely the sort of negative effects the Province is trying to prevent. We at the Township of Tay have done some preliminary work to understand the implications of the population allocations. We have draft plans in Victoria Harbour that will fall either in part or in completely outside the interim settlement boundary. This has an impact on the planned services and the viability of these smaller developments as many of their planning costs are fixed whether they have 70 lots or 120 lots. However, their profit is in numbers and cutting their numbers may result in our developers not pursuing their projects at all. This would severely restrict supply, however, would not affect demand and therefore housing costs in our area will rise contrary to the direction of the Province. The interim settlement boundary of Port McNicoll will result in the removal of a substantial portion of the built boundary (part of the brownfield of the former CP lands in Port McNicoll, now part of the Georgian Valley project). Perhaps as much as 2 /3 of these lands will have to be located outside the interim settlement boundary unless the Township is permitted to keep all of the built boundary within the interim settlement boundary. The Township is unclear how this will impact investment in this community. We are still unsure what the Province will achieve by imposing strict population allocations and thereby by restricting supply. The population allocations should be applied so that municipalities should generally conform to these numbers, as opposed to being consistent with the numbers. There is no question that increased planning costs will result in an increase in housing costs. The Township is now under pressure from other developers who have submitted subdivision applications prior to 2005 to approve their 2 Page 199 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to plans as they are supposed to not be subject to the Growth Plan. However, this is a misnomer as the County in consultation with the municipality will have to put these plans or a portion of these plans, outside of the interim settlement boundary and should some of the plan be registered prior to this boundary being established, the population from the development will be counted and therefore subject to Places to Grow. The truth is that any plans submitted prior to 2006 and in fact all vacant lots are subject to the Places to Grow document regarding population. However, the Province has not provided municipalities with the tools to keep us from Ontario Municipal Board hearings and from losing our ability to implement the Places to Grow document in a manner that is best for our residents. The Province needs to consider the cumulative effect of all the increased administration they have passed onto the people of this Province through municipal taxation which had lead in part the need to provide affordable housing. Places to Grow is yet more legislation that will affect the affordability of housing in this Province requiring yet more taxation to sustain it, a no -win situation. Although no one would argue the legislative changes that have come into effect the past several years have not been good ideas, the people of this Province cannot afford to implement every good idea because it comes at a loss of some other necessity. Places to Grow adds again to these costs. Increased planning costs for developers and increased administration and legal costs for municipalities will continue to tax our residents resulting in significant cumulate unintended effects of good, but necessary, policies and administration from the Province. The costs on typical families are real and they can not be hidden on municipal balance sheets. As we have stated in our previous correspondence to you, the unintended negative consequences of the population allocations, or caps as they are being interpreted is: 1. The public's ability to pay for the increased administration and legal fees that will result from the 2. Loss of our public schools. 3. Loss of affordable housing. 4. Loss of investment - job downtown revitalization in elsewhere. Plan. creation, business development and our communities as investors go In the interest of municipalities being able to adapt to changing market conditions and the shifting position of developers, we ask that only the lower -tier Official Plan need be amended to revise an interim settlement boundary provided that the area of the boundary does not increase and that this amendment does not require a full municipal comprehensive review. Page 200 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Amendment One to the Places to Grow legislation will require the removal of previous development rights and will result in costly litigation against municipal governments, raising the costs for taxpayers under already stressed economic conditions. The Township of Tay is currently under threat of appeal and is now expending legal costs as a direct result of this legislation. We would seek that the Province amend Subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act to include that an amendment to an Official Plan by the lower -tier municipality, to establish an interim settlement boundary, not be subject to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. We would request that the lower -tier municipality's conformity with Amendment One to Places to Grow be required no sooner than one year after the County of Simcoe Official Plan comes into effect. We would also request that when the Province updates the population allocations in Section 3 of the Places to Grow document, that they also update Schedule 7 in the Simcoe Sub -area document. We ask that you provide us with a draft copy of the transitional rules prior to their adoption for our review and comment. Further, could you also please post all the comments received on Amendment Number One to Places to Grow on the EBR. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Scott Warnock, Mayor Copy to: Township of Tay Council Simone Latham, CAO Township of Tay Bryan MacKell, Director of Planning, County of Simcoe Garfield Dunlop, MPP Simcoe North Simcoe County Municipalities 4 Page 201 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... phone 705.487.0909 fax 705.487.1411 224 Line 7 North, RR #2 L a ke S i m c o e Oro Station, Ontario LOL 2EO Reg ionaIA-irport CANADA January 26, 2011 Ontario Growth Secretariat Ministry of Infrastructure 777 Bay Street, 4 th Floor, Suite 425 Toronto, ON MSG 2E5 Sent via Fax: 416 - 325 -7403 and Email: placestogrow@ontario.ca - original to follow by regular mail RE: Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Employment Lands Dear Sir /Madam: In reference to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 and the Proposed Amendment 1, October2010, the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Inc. respectfully submits the following for your consideration. The Lake Simcoe Regional Airport is governed under the jurisdiction and authority of the Federal government in accordance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations in all matters related to the airport and its lands. In consideration of this, it would be beneficial to amend the language in the growth plan, in respect to the identified Lake Simcoe Regional Airport economic employment district, to acknowledge this point and specifically, that all lands within the boundaries of the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport are not subject to nor do the parameters of the growth plan apply. I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. Should you have any further questions or require supplementary information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 705 -487- 0999 or MDrummPlakesimcoeairaort.com Sincerely, Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Michael J. Drumm, Airport Manager cc Ms Andria Leigh, Director Development Services Township of Oro - Medonte Mr. Eric Hodgins, Growth Management Coordinator City of Barrie Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Inc. Board of Directors www.lakesimcoeairport.com Page 202 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... Lake Simcoe ,�. Region f Conservation Authority January 28, 2011 Ms. Tija Dirks Director Ministry of Infrastructure Ontario Growth Secretariat 777 Bay Street, 4 Floor, Suite 425 Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Dear Ms. Dirks: iata €naiROna( Riverioundation Proud Winner of the 2009 International Thiess Riverprize Subject: Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe EBR Registry Number 011 -152 Comments of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed Amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006). We understand that the proposed Amendment is one of six steps required to guide growth and development in the Simcoe Sub - Area identified in the provincial paper "Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth ". Other steps include the resolution of the Barrie- Innisfil boundary issue and the finalization of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Context As you are aware, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) is one of 36 conservation authorities in Ontario that provides watershed -based services. We are a provincially mandated local agency that delivers programs and services to our member municipalities within the watershed jurisdiction. In general, it is the objective of the LSRCA to protect Lake Simcoe and its watershed basin in partnership with government, the agricultural sector, development industry, Non - Governmental Organizations (NGO), special interest groups, and landowners. On December 17 2010, the LSRCA's Board of Directors dealt with Staff Report No. 67- 10 -BOD regarding the proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and passed the following resolution: 120 Bayview Parkway Box 282, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 Tel: 905.895.1281 1.800.465.0437 Pax: 905.853.5881 -Mail: info@Isrca.on.ca Website: www.lsrca.onxa A Watershed for Life Page 203 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to v� sue« Ms. Tija Dirks Re9bn EBR Registry Number 011 -152 N Comments of the LSRCA January 28` 2011 Page 2of7 Moved by: J. Grant Seconded by: B. Huson BOD- 169 -10 RESOLVED THAT Staff Report No. 67- 10 -BOD regarding the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe be received; and FURTHER THAT the Chair and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to submit final comments on the Growth Plan Amendment No. 1 to the Ministry of Infrastructure by January 31, 2011; and FURTHER THAT the Authority's Board's previous position on the Places to Grow Act and Plan be submitted as part of the Authority's comments on Proposed Amendment No. 1. On previous occasions the LSRCA's Board of Directors provided their strong position related to the Inter - Governmental Action Plan and Bill 196: Proposed Barrie- Innisfil Boundary Adjustment Act, 2009, and they continue to endorse such position which states, in part, "that the LSRCA Board and staff take a strong position against the options recommended as they are in direct opposition to the goals and objectives of the LSRCA Assimilative Capacity Study(ACS) phosphorus targets, and that the Board of Directors strongly support an option that would respect and match the targets established under the ACS.... ". In relation to Bill 196 the Board requested, in part, that "Bill 196 only be considered after it can be demonstrated that growth is environmentally sustainable and does not further negatively impact on the health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed in accordance with the lake Simcoe Protection Plan... ". The Board submitted the full resolutions outlining their position to the Minister of the Environment and the Lake Simcoe watershed municipalities and they continue to advocate this position as it relates to the Growth Plan. Carrying Capacity of Lake Simcoe The ecological health of Lake Simcoe is a matter of provincial and local interest. The LSRCA in association with watershed partners and stakeholders developed the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy (LSEMS 1990 -2007) to help protect and improve the ecological health of the Lake. Together through science and research, adequate information has been compiled along with appropriate management strategies. Most recently, this was evidenced in the creation of the Assimilative Capacity Study (ACS) undertaken in 2006 for both Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga River. Funded by the MOE, the LSRCA recently completed a detailed review of potential phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe through to approximately 2031. Page 204 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Ms. TijaDirks ry EBR Registry Number 011 -152 Comments of the LSRCA January 28' 2011 Page 3 of 8 Results from the ACS concluded that future growth could be accommodated and meet the interim phosphorus loading target of 75 tonnes per year only with the aggressive implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) with an approximate investment estimate of nearly $170 million dollars. Significant growth has occurred and continues in the Lake Simcoe basin in the absence of the investment required to implement the recommendations of the ACS. The recent work completed by the LSRCA as part of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan has clearly indicated that potential phosphorus loading as a result of proposed future growth through to 2031 which includes designated areas under the Growth Plan could be approximately 71 tonnes a year without atmospheric deposition. Adding an average of 18 tonnes per year of atmospheric loading to the predicted loading resulting from growth the potential annual loading could be approximately 88 tonnes per year; double the present target of 44 tonnes per year. This potential loading was determined without the implementation of BMP's. It is clearly evident that future growth can only be accommodated with the increased implementation of BMP's and immediate implementation of the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. Based on this information and the resource -based objectives and targets established within LSEMS, ACS, and the recent analysis, we believe that the distribution of growth within the Simcoe Sub -Area should be within the carrying capacity of Lake Simcoe. We believe that the ecological health of Lake Simcoe could be negatively impacted through increased phosphorus loading as a result of additional growth and development (e.g. employment areas) within the Sub -Area. For these reasons, growth should only be accommodated if the following targets can be met: • Water quality targets for Lake Simcoe with an emphasis on protecting Kempenfelt Bay, • Water quantity targets within the Simcoe County subwatersheds, • Natural heritage feature (aquatic and terrestrial) targets for the watershed. Accordingly, the proposed Amendment should be modified to include the requirement to meet the various resource -based targets established through LSEMS and ACS and most recently the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. The LSRCA Board of Directors have passed several resolutions in the past few years that have consistently reiterated their position that growth should only be allowed if it is environmentally sustainable and does not further impact on the health of Lake Simcoe and its watershed. In addition, one of the recommendations of the Assimilative Capacity Study is to establish a framework that would help implement Best Management Practices throughout the watershed. Page 205 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to �..u�. Ms. Tija Dirks R�gM N ty °^ EBR Registry Number 011 -152 Comments of the LSRCA January 28` 2011 Page 4of7 This framework should include: • Policy creation to mitigate impacts from further growth and development • Rehabilitation planning to helpmeet the resource -based targets • Sustainable development requirements and actions • A financial structure to sustain the funding of restoration projects On this basis, we believe that any Amendment to the Growth Plan that would allow additional growth in the Simcoe Sub -Area must contain appropriate policy establishing a framework for BMP implementation. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is in force and effect in the Lake Simcoe watershed jurisdiction. As you may know, Designated Policy (DP) 4.1 of the Plan identifies that an environmental assessment shall be completed or approved for any expansion to a settlement area, establishment of a new settlement area, or development outside a settlement area that would require an increase in the existing rated capacity of a sewage treatment plant. This environmental assessment is to be completed or approved prior to any approvals for the proposal under the Planning Act or the Condominium Act. Given the implementation of the "Simcoe Area Vision" and Amendment would involve settlement area expansions and development outside settlement areas such as the proposed employment areas, we believe that this Designated Policy of the Protection Plan must be fulfilled. As a result, we request that the Amendment contain appropriate policy identifying that an environmental assessment is required first prior to any Official Plan conformity exercises in order to ensure proper conformity with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. It should be noted that this Designated Policy has been similarly applied by the province in the watershed for urban expansions (ROPA No. 1) within the Region of York. Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Economic Employment District Figure 3 within the Implementation section of the document proposes a boundary for the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Economic Employment District. While the LSRCA generally agrees with the configuration of the proposed boundary from an environmental perspective, we believe that certain lands located east of Line 7 North should be excluded from the Employment District. For example, parts of Lot 18, Concession 8 contain key natural heritage and hydrologic features, such as wetlands, as defined by the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Development and site alteration is prohibited in key natural heritage and hydrologic features and their vegetation protection zone (minimum 30 metres). Given that development is prohibited in these environmental areas, we believe that the proposed boundary should be amended to exclude these features by coinciding with their minimum vegetation protection zone. Page 206 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to �..s Ms. Tija Dirks °^ EBR Registry Number 011 -152 Comments of the LSRCA January 28 2011 Page 5 of 7 Interim Settlement Area Boundary As you know, conservation authorities provide comprehensive storm water management review services to their watershed municipalities. Typically, this coordinated storm water management is provided through a Secondary Plan process and concurrent Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESP). Comprehensive and coordinated storm water management typically results in fewer facilities such as ponds which reduces the public cost for long -term and ongoing maintenance to municipalities. It appears, based on the proposed Growth Plan Amendment, that the creation of an interim settlement area boundary may inhibit comprehensive storm water management. For example, if only a part of a comprehensively planned development may be permitted to proceed with the implementation of an interim settlement area boundary, then it is possible that additional storm water management ponds may result. This increase in permanent or temporary (interim) storm water ponds, undoubtedly, would create an unnecessary financial burden to municipalities for ongoing maintenance of multiple facilities. It could also increase the public cost should storm water pond retrofitting be required as the settlement area grows and develops over time. On this basis, we believe that the Amendment should specifically contain appropriate language to allow comprehensive storm water management to continue in order to avoid an unnecessary increase in pond facilities and associated costs to municipalities. Flood Plain Management Conservation authorities represent the provincial interest as it relates to the implementation of the natural hazards policies of the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act. In general, it is our mutual objective to reduce the public cost or risk to Ontario's residents from natural hazards such as flooding and erosion. As a result, development should be directed away from flood prone areas in order to protect people and property and to minimize social disruption. As you know, many communities in Ontario have been established around waterways including lakes, rivers, and streams. These communities, including the downtown core, historically contain flood prone areas associated with these waterways. For example, the Built -up Area of the City of Barrie is traversed by many watercourses that contain associated flood plain areas. Parts of these flood plain areas are non - developable based on flood depths and velocities and the unacceptable risk to people and property. Page 207 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to mot. :b� Ms. Tija Dirks � Rpbn EBR Registry Number 011 -152 Comments of the LSRCA January 28` 2011 Paee 6 of 8 On this basis, we believe that flood prone lands should be removed from the Built Boundary. In this way, the conflict between meeting the intensification targets of the Growth Plan and directing development away from flood plain areas within the Built Boundary will be eliminated. We recommend, therefore, that the flood plain lands be removed from the Built Boundary as part of this Growth Plan Amendment process to avoid any undesirable intensification of the flood plain. Summary of Recommendations To summarize, we request that any Amendment to the Growth Plan recognize the following (through appropriate policy and changes to the proposed Amendment): • That the accommodation of growth shall only occur in the Lake Simcoe watershed in an environmentally sustainable manner. • That the resource -based targets established through LSEMS, ACS, and now the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan must be met concurrently with the accommodation of growth. • That growth shall only occur in the watershed with the concurrent financial investment required to meet the recommendations and Best Management Practices established in LSEMS and ACS. • That approval of any Planning Act applications shall only occur after approval of an environmental assessment has been obtained illustrating that appropriate sanitary servicing exists for any expansions to settlement areas or development outside settlement areas, in accordance with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. • That the proposed boundary of the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Economic Employment District exclude key natural heritage and /or hydrologic features such as wetlands, as defined by the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. • That comprehensive storm water management should be promoted and permitted within the entire settlement area boundary notwithstanding the establishment of an Interim Settlement Area Boundary. • That lands susceptible to flooding shall be removed from the Built - Boundary to avoid conflicting objectives of intensification with proper flood plain management. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Growth Plan Amendment. Page 208 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to �.M— Ms. Tija Dirks -r °^ EBR Registry Number 011 -152 Comments of the LSRCA January 28` 2011 Page 7of7 If you have any questions with regard to the above, please contact Mike Walters, General Maria ersfieA or the undersigned. a D. Gayle Wood, CMM III Chief Administrative Officer c: LSRCA Board of Directors Wayne Wilson, CAO, NVCA Mike Walters, General Manager, Watershed Management, SRCA; Bonnie Fox, Manager, Policy and Planning, Conservation Ontario Phil Brennan, Ministry of Environment Tim Haldenby, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing County of Simcoe, Bryan MacKell Watershed Area Municipalities Page 209 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to MORGAN 1%ftmool January 31, 2011 Hon. Minister Chiarelli, MPP Ministry of Infrastructure 777 Bay Street, 4 Floor, Suite 425 Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Dear Minister Chiarelli: Via Email and Facsimile (416)325 -7403 Re: Proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 I am writing this letter as a planner with almost twenty -five years experience in land -use planning and economic development, with the last twenty years of that experience in Simcoe County, primarily at the municipal level. As part of that experience, I was actively involved in the preparation of the County's first Official Plan, the current Official Plan for the City of Orillia, the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management program (LSEMS), IGAP and the consultation which took place for the preparation of the new County Official Plan. I am currently a planning consultant with Morgan Planning and Development which is based in Orillia and has municipal and private sector clients throughout Central Ontario. While I have been advising clients of the potential implications of the proposed Amendment and providing assisting with the generation of submissions, this submission has not been prepared on behalf of a client and represents my opinions as a planner. I would like to preface my remarks by stating that I welcome the return of the Province to a more active role in land -use planning and its recognition that growth management is important and that significant changes need to be made in the nature of development and redevelopment if the environmental impacts are to be properly addressed and the quality of life enhanced for present and future residents of the Province. The shift towards more efficient use of land and a greater emphasis on making communities more "liveable" are all laudable objectives and the Province is to be complemented on the contributions it has made to enhancing acceptance of this principles by the development sector, decision - makers and the general public. P.O. Box 834, Orillia, Ontario Tel: (705) 327 -2070 / Fax: (705) 327 -2434 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT INC. Page 210 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to However, despite these accomplishments and the honourable intentions which underlie the contents of the Proposed Amendment No. 1 (GPA 1) and the "Simcoe Area: A strategic Vision for Growth" document before it, I am concerned that the assumptions which GPA 1 is founded on and the proposed implementation are seriously flawed and could result in outcomes which run counter to the goals of the Province in preparing the Growth Plan and the proposed Amendment. If "numbers management" becomes a fixation in a system where municipalities and the province have only a limited ability to influence the individual decisions which together drive the location of population and employment, the unintended consequences could significantly constrain economic activity, undermine housing affordability and lead to a diminishing in the quality of life which the policies were intended to improve. Given the enormity of the task of growth management, the limitations of the tools and information available, coupled with the complexities of the planning system in Ontario and considering what is at stake, implementing the proposed amendment so that it does not result in significant negative unintended outcomes is a daunting prospect. It appears that the proposed system is too inflexible to respond to changing circumstances and will result in constant battles before the Municipal Board and even the courts. It is dependent on a significant intrusion of Provincial staff into how planning policy has been delivered at the local level, with no apparent consideration of local considerations and constraints which municipalities are entrusted in dealing with. This "top- down ", numbers -based methodology is completely contrary to the approach taken by the Province towards municipal planning for the last thirty years and contradicts the assurances made by various Ministers and provincial officials that a collaborative approach would be taken to growth management and that the Province was not seeking to impose rigid "hard caps" on the various communities which make up Simcoe County. Soecific Concerns: Emolovment Allocations There is substantial variation in the ratio between the population and employment allocations assigned to each municipality — from 1.9 new people for each new job (Penetanguishene) to 29.8 (Wasaga Beach). These variances indicate vary substantial changes in projected labour force participation rates and appear to contravene the policy directives regarding live /work relationships and the target of one job for every three additional people. Where modifications have been made to the population allocations proposed in the Simcoe Area Strategic Vision document, there have not been corresponding changes in the employment allocations in the proposed GPA 1. This suggests consideration has been made to the linkage between population and employment. P.O. Box 834, Orillia, Ontario 2 Tel: (705) 327 -2070 / Fax: (705) 327 -2434 Page 211 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to There is a basic inability to predict and control employment. The only mechanism which municipalities control which has an influence on the employment within individual businesses is through zoning but these by -laws only determine the nature of uses within the categories of permitted uses identified — e.g. manufacturing, warehousing, office use, they do not control the number of employees. This will vary according to market factors and the success (or lack thereof) for a given facility, labour and capital intensity of the enterprise, shift patterns, technology, corporate role of a facility, etc. There is no reporting requirement on employment levels, so monitoring is difficult. Therefore, the base data is poor, the number and impact of external factors large and beyond their control, resulting in an inability to make employment predictions with any reasonable degree of certainty. Implementation of specific employment targets is completely beyond the ability of a municipality to achieve. (Even in a soviet system with mandated production and employment levels, this was achieved only be administrative fiat at the national level and ultimately proved unsustainable.) Statisticians refer to the "law of large numbers" — the greater the number of occurrences which are considered, the less likely it is that random variation in events and specific circumstances will have an impact. Therefore as you move down the scale of economic activity (national, regional, provincial, sub - provincial, large centres, small centres) the level of uncertainty increases as does the effects of specific circumstances — the ability for the conglomeration of activity to balance out specific circumstances and variances is lost as you move to the local level. The smaller the individual community, the greater the inability of the local economy to smooth out the impact of external factors and to predict what will happen in the future. Artificial restrictions on the availability of employment lands will tend to increase the absolute cost of this component of doing business, inhibiting the competitiveness of the affected employers. By artificially limiting the choices available for sites, some enterprises will be forced to choose sub - optimal locations, impairing their competitiveness and inhibiting overall economic activity. There has been no demonstration that achievement of "job densities" which approach 50 per hectare is even possible. Outside of a few specific employment nodes in the province or particular facilities, these numbers are very much atypical of the Ontario experience and do not appear to reflect economic realities. The danger is that policies passed on a desired outcome rather than something which is realistically achievable will likely have significant untended consequences, in particular a detrimental on local and provincial economic activity. The methodology of calculating the amount of greenfield land within interim settlement boundaries which appears to be contemplated in the GPA (ie. dividing the total number of people and jobs which can be accommodated outside of the P.O. Box 834, Orillia, Ontario Tel: (705) 327 -2070 / Fax: (705) 327 -2434 Page 212 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to built area by the mandated density yielding the total land area) will result in a very limited supply of employment lands in many communities. As the number of opportunities is also limited by market factors, designated lands will often be on the market for many years before an employer comes along who is seeking land which matches its characteristics. This lag is a result of market factors and not any "prematurely" in the designation of the land. It is worth noting that firms choose locations because of the advantageous combination of factors they offers. These are related to; labour factors, accessibility to input sources and markets, the cost and availability of land and services, and considerations which may be as mundane as proximity to the decision - makers home. Thus, the requirements of each enterprise and the ability of individual sites to meet their requirements are highly variable. Any artificial restriction of the availability of sites will result in missed opportunities and sub - optimal site selections. For example — notwithstanding the identification of the Lake Simcoe Airport Industrial Area, with an employment allocation of 1,300 jobs for Oro - Medonte Township, even at a density of 25 /hectare, only 52 hectares would be available for new employers. This could either be piecemealed out between several locations or concentrated on one site, but the distribution will have to correctly anticipate the locational requirements of future employers as the inflexibility of the allocation mechanism does not allow the municipality to make the necessary adjustment to the land supply in a timely fashion, resulting in the inability to respond to an opportunity. If for instance, the land base was divided between four sites of 13 ha. each and a company came in seeking a 20 hectare site to satisfy their operational requirements and provide for future expansion, the municipality cannot provide a suitable site, even through one might be zoned and serviced, due to a lack of allocation. If a local community is unable to respond to an opportunity because there is insufficient land designated to accommodate it there, but it is available elsewhere in the County in a location which the company has determined is less appropriate or even completely unsuitable due to the specific characteristics of their operation, even the ability to potentially address the situation in an upcoming review is not enough to give a potential employer the level of certainty he is looking for. The employer will be either forced to locate in a location which is less desirable from his perspective (thus jeopardizing his potential for success and job creation) or they will simply go to another jurisdiction which can provide more choice and certainty. If Honda had faced a policy environment similar to what is being put forward in the proposed Amendment and growth allocations based on the projections of the day when they were making the decision to locate their plant, they could not have obtained the necessary approvals to locate in Alliston. P.O. Box 834, Orillia, Ontario 4 Tel: (705) 327 -2070 / Fax: (705) 327 -2434 Page 213 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Therefore, unless there is an (inexplicable) desire to constrain economic activity in individual communities, Simcoe County and the province, the proposed imposition of specific, community -by- community allocations of employment and thus the sites which are available for employers, seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Housing Impacts GPA 1 will potentially affect housing affordability in the medium to long -term by: - restricting supply, thus reducing market choice and increasing prices - delaying purchases or moving purchasers to other jurisdictions - significantly increasing uncertainty. Until the ISAB is established, the potential exists for a development site to fall outside of it and be "frozen ". Once the ISAB is established, the potential for it to be retracted at some future date also creates uncertainty. By increasing uncertainty, financing development becomes more difficult and expensive — this will squeeze some builders and developers out of the market (further restricting supply reducing market choice and increasing prices) and lenders will seek a higher "risk premium" for the increase in uncertainty. Projects which require substantial investment in infrastructure and projects in smaller markets where the timelines for build -out for developments tends to be longer due to slower uptake levels, will be the most vulnerable. Process Despite the assurances given through the IGAP process that growth management in Simcoe would be a co- operative and consultative process, the release of the Strategic Vision and GPA 1 with no advance warning or even consultation on basic statistics calls into question the commitment to these principles. Although the IGAP process and the development of the new County Official Plan may have been imperfect, they actively involved stakeholders and provided opportunities for the public to review the material and make submissions. The Amendment appears to have been developed in isolation with no real consultation taking place. Without the availability of any additional background work which may have been done or explanation of the proposed shifts in growth allocations, it is impossible to understand the basis for those changes. Through -out the IGAP process, it was continually stated that the object was not to impose "hard caps" on communities, freeze development or require the de- designation of land. The exercise was to be about "good planning" and wasn't "all about the numbers ". Yet, the GPA 1 is very much based on implementing provincially mandated population and employment allocations through the delineation of Interim Settlement Boundaries (ISAB) and the creation of a very P.O. Box 834, Orillia, Ontario Tel: (705) 327 -2070 / Fax: (705) 327 -2434 Page 214 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to cumbersome process to modify them. As existing approvals and designations are in effect suspended (or in the case of draft plan approvals to be required to lapse) the Province is proposing the imposition of "hard caps" and restricting the area in which development can even be considered before 2031. This can only be accomplished by what are in effect development freezes, de- designations and the dezoning of property. Interim Settlement Are Boundaries Municipalities are justifiably concerned that implementation of the ISAB's will precipitate numerous appeals and even court challenges. Given to the extent that the basis of major investments in land, obtaining approvals and infrastructure will be fundamentally altered in many cases, it would be surprising if this was not an outcome. In response, many municipalities have suggested that the delineation of ISABs be made non - appealable. This has been likened to the removal of the right of appeal to the refusal of a request to expand a settlement area. However, there is a significant difference — applications to expand a settlement area are seeking to increase the development potential of lands. The establishment of an ISAB has the effect of suspending previous approvals and designations. Removal of the right to challenge a decision to remove what you once had is fundamentally opposed to basic principles behind the planning process and of natural justice. Concerns have been raised regarding the need to implement amendments to both the local and County Official Plans when modifying ISABs reinforces the apparent inflexibility of the proposed system of growth management. Furthermore, not only would proposed amendments pit community against community, they will also pit municipality vs. municipality as the system is established as a zero -sum game and increase in one area have to be made up by decreases elsewhere. Underlying Assumptions A basic premise of GPA 1 appears to be that the larger the community, the better it will be able to accommodate population growth while promoting the development of a "complete" community and minimizing environmental impacts and the costs of providing infrastructure. Therefore, growth is to be concentrated in the largest communities and the balance distributed in diminishing proportions down through the urban hierarchy. This approach is, at best, an over- simplification of the cause and effects of growth which ignores the constraints and opportunities that each community faces in accommodating new development. At worst, it will distort development patterns towards a state which is significantly less desirable that what would otherwise occur and exacerbate the problems it is trying to address. P.O. Box 834, Orillia, Ontario Tel: (705) 327 -2070 / Fax: (705) 327 -2434 Page 215 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to This "big is better" approach is extended towards servicing considerations. The Assimilative Capacity analysis completed for through IGAP demonstrated that significant urban development would place additional stresses on the already degraded water quality of the Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga River watersheds. The proposed population allocations contained in the final report were based on applied controls on sewage treatment and stormwater management which went beyond current best practices. This approach was criticized for going beyond the "environment first" and "science- based" foundation of IGAP. The costs associated with the required levels of treatment to service some of the proposed allocations would be significantly more expensive (probably exponentially more) than servicing costs in the portion of the County which does not face the same assimilative capacity constraints. The effect of the proposed GPA 1 development is direct development away from some of the lower -cost, lower- impact communities is completely counter - intuitive. The other fundamental premise is that it is both possible and desirable to precisely match supply and demand for both housing and employment lands and that forecasts over the long -term can be made with a considerable level of certainty on both a macro- and a micro - scale. This assumes a level of accuracy in demographic projections which historically has not been achieved. Furthermore, it is recognized by demographers and statisticians that the smaller the scale, the higher the level of uncertainty. I believe that there is an assumption that as the population allocations in the GGH will be reviewed every five years and that any revisions will trickle down through the upper tiers, local municipalities and to individual communities, there is sufficient flexibility to respond to changes in circumstance. Unfortunately, as the last few years has demonstrated, changes in economic factors, employment levels, market influences and migration can happen very quickly and in unanticipated ways, particularly at the local level. If a local community is unable to respond to an opportunity because there is insufficient land designated to accommodate it there, but it is available elsewhere in the County in a location which the company has determined is less appropriate or even completely unsuitable due to the specific characteristics of their operation, even the ability to potentially address the situation in an upcoming review is not enough to give a potential employer the level of certainty he is looking for. The employer will be either forced to locate in a location which is less desirable from his perspective (thus jeopardizing his potential for success and job creation) or they will simply go to another jurisdiction which can provide more choice and certainty. If Honda had faced a policy environment similar to what is being put forward and growth allocations based on the projections of the day when they were making the decision to locate their plant, they could not have obtained the necessary approvals to locate in Alliston. P.O. Box 834, Orillia, Ontario 7 Tel: (705) 327 -2070 /Fax: (705) 327 -2434 Page 216 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to I believe creating a system which establishes rigid controls on the size of each and every community and is premised on an exact matching of supply and demand and which can only be modified following an extensive review process and which diminishes the consideration of local factors is unrealistic and will result in many unintended negative consequences. It will result in the imposition of planning controls which will eventually prove unworkable and will serve to undermine support in the development industry, at the political level and with the general public for the laudable goals and objectives behind Places to Grow. Thank -you for your consideration of these comments. Respectfully submitted, Andrew R. Fyfe, MA (Plan) c. The Honourable Rick Bartolucci, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing The Honourable Sandra Pupatello, Minister of Economic Development and Trade The Honourable Aileen Carroll (Barrie) Mr. Garfield Dunlop, MPP (Simcoe North) Ms. Julia Munro, MPP (York - Simcoe) Mr. Jim Wilson, MPP (Simcoe -Grey) Warden Cal Patterson (and members of Simcoe County Council) Ms. Tija Dirks, Director, Ministry of Energy, Ontario Growth Secretariat Mr. Victor Severino, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ontario Growth Secretariat P.O. Box 834, Orillia, Ontario Tel: (705) 327 -2070 / Fax: (705) 327 -2434 Page 217 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... Please refer to: Susan. Rosenthal' e- mail.: susartr@davieshowe.com Davies H o w e January .31, 2011 Partners LLP By E -mail to Bob.Chiarellicrontario.ca and placestogrow(ci)ontario.ca Lawyers The Fifth Floor 99 Spadina Ave Teronto,Qntario. M5V 3P8 T 416.977.7088 F 416..977..8931 davteshowe.com The Honourable Bob Chiarelli Minister of Infrastructure Province of Ontario Mowat Block, 5th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 1C2 -and- Ontario Growth Secretariat Ministry of Infrastructure 777 Bay Street, 4'h Floor, Suite 425 Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 Dear Minister: Re: Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 ( "Proposed Growth Plan Amendment ") Submission on behalf of Craighurst Land Corp. We are counsel to Craighurst, Land, Corp. Craighurst Land Corp. ( "Craighurst ") is a major landowner in the Craighurst Settlement. Area, which is a major settlement area in the Township of Oro - Medonte.. The Craighurst Land Corp. property is situated northeast of the intersection of County Road 93 and County Road 22 and is adjacent to the northeast quadrant of the existing built -up community of Craighurst. The Craighurst Settlement Area is subject to the Craighurst Secondary Plan (.OPA 27) adopted by the Township of Oro- Medonte in May 2009. Significant investment was made by Craighurst in reliance on a provincial, county and local municipal policy framework which directed growth to settlement areas and required the establishment of a secondary plan to implement this direction. Craighurst's investment was based on an informed expectation that the Craighurst lands could be developed in the .foreseeable future All the planning work to Page 218 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... ■ Page 2 IN i) a v i e s. support the establishment of the policy framework to enable the development of H o w e Craighurst's lands has been completed in full conformity: with the Growth Plan. Partners t r P In addition to alt. this planning work significant investment has been made in the carrying but of an environmental assessment with respect to servicing of the Craighurst Settlement Area to ensure that servicing will be provided in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner. The proposed. Growth .Plan Amendment has allocated insufficient population and employment to Oro - Medonte to allow for all designated development in the Township, and proposes an unacceptable process applicable ,only to Simcoe which could result in the claw back of entrenched development rights. We have the following specific comments with respect to the proposed amendment. Inaccurate and Outdated Numbers It is essential that population and employment forecasts be based on the most current and accurate information available. This is especially significant since these numbers will be used for planning and managing growth in the Simcoe area as required by section 6.2.1.. Despite this importance, the numbers in Schedule 7 for the Township of Oro - Medonte are not based. on current or complete information. The 2031 forecasts in Schedule 7 do not incorporate updated census information that has been released since the census periods relied upon for the County's forecasts.. These numbers are based on the forecast found in Schedule 3 of the 2006 Growth Plan which was projected relying on the 2001 census data, These data have since been superseded by the 2006 census data. The Ministry of Finance has recently released. updated population forecasts for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including Oro - Medonte which are 525,000 persons higher than growth projected in Schedule 3, whose numbers are relied on by the proposed Growth Plan Amendment. The difference becomes even more pronounced as growth is projected beyond 2031. These differences must call into question the forecasts in Schedule 7. The Growth Plan requires the province to update Schedule 3 every, five years. The first review is mandated to occur in 2011 using 2006 census data and other updated indicators. Why does Section 7 rely on information that is between five - ten years out of date when updating is mandated to occur this very year? Why is: Schedule 7 legislating built -in obsolescence when the law 'itself dictates that updated information be Identified this year? Page 219 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... ® Page 3 D a v i e s Given the importance. of the Schedule 7 numbers, why aren't these updated H o w e numbers being used? P art.ners L L P The proposed amendment, and particularly Schedule 7, should not be approved in its current form but should be reassessed to incorporate the most current, accurate and complete information available consistent with the Growth Plan requirements for a review a minimum of every five years (June 2011). Seasonal Population A policy should be added acknowledging that seasonal population in Simcoe (which has been acknowledged by the province to be significant) is not included in the population forecasts and should not be included for purposes of identifying "interim settlement area boundaries ". Staff have confirmed that the methodology for addressing seasonal population is to be addressed directly by the county in consultation with its local municipalities at technical briefings. A policy confirming this should be added. The Regional Market Area Should Continue to Apply to the Assessment of Settlement Boundary Expansions The proposed Growth Plan Amendment introduces, for the first time, an exemption from the requirement to consider the Regional Market Area (RMA) when determining whether a settlement b_ oundary expansion is justified. This exemption is highly selective and would apply only to the Simcoe area. The Growth Plan continues to maintain this, requirement in the rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe for good reason. It is important to ensure that lands within existing settlement areas in an AMA are developed before settlement area boundaries are expanded in other parts of the RMA. The deletion of the requirement to consider the RMA does not reflect the reality of the marketplace and unnecessarily limits the opportunities available to maximize synergies between municipalities whose RMA extends beyond municipal boundaries. Accordingly, we strongly recommend that section 6.3.7 be deleted and RMAs continue to be a valid planning consideration just as they are in the rest . of the province. The Requirement for Interim. Settlement Area Boundaries should be Eliminated Another new concept introduced in the proposed Growth Plan Amendment which was not discussed in the Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth is the. concept Page 220 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... IN ■ Page 4 D a v i e s of an "interim settlement area boundary. ", This proposed change adds another H o w e level of process which is not required in any other part of the Greater Golden P a r t n e r s Horseshoe or the province, and does so without any justification or thoughtful L L P assessment of its implications. The province's approach in all other parts of Ontario is to leave it to individual municipalities to establish phasing policies, holding requirements and to utilize their own growth management tools to set out the planned functions within their own municipal boundaries. No good reason has been given as to why this same approach cannot be taken in the Simcoe Area. The creation of "interim settlement area boundaries" effectively shrinks approved . settlement areas and will cause the "sterilization" of approved and planned development within these settlement areas for more than 20 years. This heavy handed policy effectively and indefinitely eliminates existing settlement area boundaries and development rights upon which significant investment decisions were made. This is, effectively, expropriation without. compensation. Even more distressing is the fact that the province is forcing the Simcoe Area municipalities to implement this onerous and draconian measure on the basis of outdated forecasts which the Growth Plan itself recognizes should be revisited. The implementation of this requirement will take considerable time (a minimum of three years if there Is no dispute over which lands should be included in the boundary area) and be very costly for the public sector (local and upper tier municipalities, provincial ministries)„ as well as taxpayers= and other members of the private sector. Local municipalities, together with the county, will be required to complete the planning and other studies necessary to determine appropriate boundaries and then proceed through a comprehensive official plan process, most likely a zoning by -law process, and in some cases amendments to subdivision approvals to meet the requirements of the proposed Growth Plan Amendment. Given the inevitably lengthy timing of these processes, which have to take into account public consultation and differences of opinion about the boundary location, it is very likely that the necessary implementation of the boundaries will not be complete before the revised forecasts are released, rendering obsolete all the work done and requiring the municipality to start again. Rather than jumpstarting investment and development, which the province has said is its stated goal, economic growth will be flatlined. Nothing will move forward gas the municipalities and landowners are stuck in a continuous "spin cycle" with no clarity :on how development is to be dealt with in the interim. This will inevitably continue to suppress economic prosperity, and result in further job losses in Simcoe, Page 221 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... Page 5 D a v i e s Barrie and Orillia. The province cannot afford this and the taxpayers of Ontario H o w e deserve better. Pa r n r L L P It has come to our attention, that in response to the proposed requirement for the establishment of interim settlement area boundaries, and the concern about expending public resources to justify a "claw back" of previously granted planning approvals, there have been several municipal requests to eliminate the opportunity to appeal the determination of an interim settlement area boundary to the Ontario Municipal Board. These appeal rights, entrenched under the Planning Act, form a fundamental basis of the democratic rights afforded to landowners and other members of the community to protect their interests and challenge decisions in an open, fair manner. The right to do so is essential to the administrative justice principle that forms the cornerstone of the .provincial planning process. We strongly oppose any elimination of appeal rights, particularly where property rights are so significantly affected and suggest that any such elimination would be contrary to the Planning Act, For all the reasons stated, we request that there be no requirement for the creation of "interim settlement area boundaries ". Simcoe County can Implement Province's elision Using the Same Rules and Process as the Rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe The amendment. proposes a very constrictive set of rules that go well beyond the establishment of broad policy, rules which apply nowhere else in the province. For example, municipalities in the rest of Ontario do not have to: • Ignore their regional market areas when determining if a settlement expansion should occur:; • Prohibit development in established and approved Settlement Areas by imposing Interim Settlement Area Boundaries; • Spend millions of dollars on extensive comprehensive planning exercises . which are based on information known to be outdated and imminently obsolete; • Accept a distribution of population and employment forecasts imposed by the province rather than a distribution to the local municipality by upper tier county and regional governments with no rights of consultation, Page 222 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... IN Page 6 D a v i e s collaboration or opportunity to challenge the: local distribution H o w e available to the rest of the province; Partners L L R • Accept very specific local intensification targets (as per Table 1) imposed by the province; and .. Plan on the basis of very detailed policies for strategic employment lands, (including permitted uses and the mix and percentage of certain uses, lot sizes etc.), rather than on their own secondary processes where other municipalities determine these policies for themselves.. The taxpayers of Simcoe County, through their elected councils, have prepared Official Plans that provide clear, reasonable. and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and .direct development to suitable areas. Technical background studies were prepared and the plans were the subject of full community consultation and debate and adopted (and in some cases approved). These exercises will become redundant with the passage of the proposed amendment and significant taxpayer dollars will have been wasted.. The policies of the proposed amendment including the population and employment numbers are not based on technical studies that considered the specific characteristics of the individual local municipalities of the county and they were not developed in collaboration with local municipalities, the private development sector or local reside..nts. No sufficient explanation has been given to justify the province's decision to micromanage the county and target the Simcoe Area with a different set of rules than apply elsewhere in the province. We submit that the tools given to. municipalities in the rest of the province to manage their growth are satisfactory and necessary for Simcoe to 'maintain the: scope it requires to implement growth plan goals and objectives. These tools were relied upon by investors in the county in making decisions: and should continue to apply to the Simcoe Area. There is no reason to limit them as proposed under the. proposed amendment. Transition We strongly request that the transition regulations for the proposed amendment. be made available for 'public review and consultation in advance of finalization of the Amendment. The impacts and implications of the Amendment arising from the transition rules should be fully known in advance so that they can be addressed Page 223 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... ® Page 7 D a v i e s before the Amendment is set in stone. It is often the case that the "devil is in the H o w e details" yet the details are being kept from the public, Partners L L r Furthermore, we strongly request that the transition rules ensure that existing approvals /adoptions will not be retroactively affected by the - amendment. The Proposed Amendment Sends the Wrong Message to Foreign and Local Investors The proposed amendment changes the rules midstream without any justification. It unfairly and undemocratically impacts on entrenched development rights upon which significant investment has been made by a broad investor base, including foreign and domestic interests, including pension funds, accredited financial institutions and local taxpayers. While the province has claimed to the investment community that this amendment package does not remove development rights, investors have now unwrapped the package and peered inside. We have discovered that the amendment effectively does exactly the opposite of what the province is telling people it does - it strips landowners of their development rights. It forces municipalities to claw back development opportunities in settlement areas which, before the Amendment, would have been available for development within. the foreseeable future. It requires municipalities to tell people who have made substantial investments based on reasonable expectations that they now cannot develop for at least 20, and maybe more, years. This is tantamount to a revocation of development rights. The province cannot ignore the impact of the loss of investor confidence on municipal finance. The loss of development potential compromises carefully planned sources of revenue necessary to fund municipal debts, (including revenue through the collection of development .charges and front -end payments). In the. absence of such revenue streams, municipal debt liability. will fall to the taxpayer. Such invasive actions, which completely disregard economic impact, undermine confidence in the. province of Ontario and its government and discourage foreign and local investment in Ontario; Investments will go to other more stable locations. It sends the wrong message: Ontario is not open for business. In order to bring back investment confidence, it is imperative that the proposed amendment change to recognize the reality of the market place and set planning policy based on current information and up-to-date forecasts, Thank you far the Page 224 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to... Page'8 D a v i c s opportunity to comment on the Amendment. We .would be pleased tct discuss our H o w e comments with you and /or provide further information. Partners L L P Yours sincerely, DAVIES HOWE PARTNERS LLP j� e ( t" Susan Rosenthal Copy: Ms. Tija Dirks, Director, Ministry of`lnfrastructure Mr. Brian Mackell, Director of Planning and Economic Development, County of Simcoe Ms. Andria Leigh, Director of Planning, Township of Oro - Medonte Mr. Paul Lowes, Sorensen, Gravely & Lowes Ms. Maria Gatzios, Gatzios Planning Client Page 225 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to January 31, 2011 Ms. Tija Dirks Director Ministry of Energy Ontario Growth Secretariat Growth Policy, Planning and Analysis Planning and Analysis 777 Bay Street, Floor 4 Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006: An amendment and implementation tools for the Simcoe Sub -Area EBR Registry Number: 011 -1528 Dear Ms. Dirks, The Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) would like to thank the Ontario Growth Secretariat for the opportunity to make the enclosed submission on the Proposed Amendment 1 (2010) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006: An amendment and implementation tools for the Simcoe Sub -Area. OPPI members are committed to creating and fostering healthy communities throughout Ontario. We are pleased to provide comments. Established in 1986, OPPI is the recognized voice of the Province's planning profession and provides vision and leadership on key planning issues. Government, private industry, agencies, and academic institutions employ more than 3000 practicing planners. In addition, we have approximately 500 student members. Members work in a wide variety of fields including urban and rural community development, urban design, environment, housing, transportation, health and social services, and economic development. Overview When Places to Grow was introduced in 2006, it was greeted by the planning profession as a significant improvement in long term planning in Ontario. The provincial government took a major step in being more actively involved in growth management in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and put into legislation many of the innovative approaches to growth management that municipalities were attempting to introduce and implement. Page 226 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to From its first inception, Places to Grow has generated a considerable amount of discussion. In particular, during the implementation phases, Places to Grow has focussed dialogue within the planning profession on the changes required to address global and regional issues such as the loss of agriculture, climate change, structural changes in the manufacturing sector, and the fiscal health of local governments. OPPI recognized this innovative Provincial initiative by awarding it the Leonard Gertler Award of Distinction in 2007. OPPI has continued to support the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Provincial efforts in regional planning. Municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe have been conducting the required conformity exercises and preparing Official Plan amendments to implement the policies of the Growth Plan. These municipalities have the onerous but exciting task of planning for significant levels of population and employment growth between now and 2031. A fundamental basis for the degree and timing of growth is the implementation of capital investments to municipal services. The Growth Secretariat has been steadfast in their requirement that municipalities adhere to the policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and to the principles of smart growth contained in the Plan. However, this leadership is seriously jeopardized when the very same government agency that developed the Growth Plan, initiates the Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth, to be implemented through Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan. This, in the Institute's view, runs counter to many of the principles established through the Growth Plan. Background The proposed Amendment 1 focuses on four key areas by: • identifying urban nodes where growth and intensification can be focused; • providing population and employment growth forecasts for all communities in the Simcoe area to ensure that growth is focused where it can best be accommodated; • requiring that communities assess the land they need to meet their forecasted growth by 2031, and manage the supply of land available for development; and • identifying focused, strategic industrial employment areas along Highway 400 to support job creation, manufacturing and industrial activities and economic employment districts to support local employment. The related servicing and transportation studies are to be completed at a later date through separate exercises and are not part of Amendment 1. Page 227 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to In addition to the above, Amendment 1 includes several new planning policies for managing growth. These include: Interim Settlement Area Boundaries: The Amendment requires interim settlement boundaries to be designated in Official Plans that reflect the lands needed to satisfy the growth requirements to 2031. The designated greenfield area that is not within the interim settlement area boundary is to be excluded from the area considered for the measurement of the density target for designated greenfield area. Development applications will not be approved unless they are within the interim settlement boundaries. Strategic Industrial Employment Areas and Economic Employment Districts: Four strategic employment areas are identified - none of which are immediately adjacent to an urban node. The economic employment districts are located on or near Highway 11 (Rama Road and Lake Simcoe Regional Airport) and the two economic employment districts are identified along Highway 400 (Innisfil and Bradford). These are to be considered as designated greenfield areas. Specific Permitted Uses for Strategic Employment Areas and Economic Employment Districts: The uses permitted within the strategic industrial employment areas are those which can benefit from the location adjacent to Highway 400. Major retail and residential uses are not permitted. It is interesting to note that in one of the designated areas, is confined to agricultural uses, agricultural - related uses and secondary uses Alternative Intensification and Density Targets: As per the policies in the Growth Plan which allow outer ring municipalities to seek lower intensification and density targets, the Amendment includes alternative intensification and density targets for each municipality. The intensification targets range from 40% to 20 %, with a County- wide target of 33 %. The proposed density targets range from 32 to 50 people and jobs per hectare. Comments on the Amendment There are some positive aspects of Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan. The identification of the City of Barrie as the major centre for future developed is consistent with the principles of the Growth Plan. The concept of identifying six urban nodes for future growth and intensification is also consistent and should provide a strong foundation for smart growth. It is also recognized that the Amendment attempts to address the issue of oversupply of designated land. OPPI has concerns, however, with the use of interim settlement areas as the implementation tool selected. Page 228 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Notwithstanding the above, the Amendment contains elements that appear to conflict with a number of foundation principles of the Growth Plan. More specifically, we have concerns that the Amendment may have limited effect in containing urban sprawl and producing complete communities that are transit supportive. We are also concerned that the identification of need and the tying of future growth to existing and planned infrastructure may not have been wholly considered in the preparation of the Amendment. In addition to this, the proposed interim settlement area boundary approach is inconsistent with Provincial standards found elsewhere in the Province, where municipalities are encouraged to rationalize land supplies and tighten urban boundaries. Also, the Amendment is unclear as to how it complies with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Lastly, the Amendment appears to have been prepared with little to no planning analysis which would have addressed all of the above issues in a comprehensive, transparent and public process. These concerns are further discussed below. Containment of Urban Sprawl /Complete Communities The population and employment allocations in the Growth Plan are reflected in Amendment 1. The Amendment distributes population and employment to lower tier municipalities in the County of Simcoe and establishes two Strategic Employment Areas and two Employment Districts. While the Ministry argued that the employment districts represented opportunities for large lot industrial employment uses that could not easily be found in existing settlements, the fact remains that these areas are not part of existing settlement areas, do not represent complete communities and will encourage increased private automobile commuting rather than public transit or other active transportation systems. How these areas can be serviced is not discussed and appears to be left to detailed studies in the future along with transportation issues. Given the scale of the development it would be appropriate to address servicing implications, transportation, environmental and agricultural implications before, not after, the Amendment is approved. While recognizing that the Bradford employment node was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board and will be implemented through a Minister's Zoning Order, the office uses provided for in the Strategic Industrial Employment Areas should be more appropriately located in existing settlement areas in order to support downtown development and existing transit infrastructure. The restrictions on office uses are found in the Implementation Section of Amendment 1 and are identified along with other uses as employment supportive uses. The overall potential amount of office use appears to be substantial. 4 Page 229 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Identification of Need The issue of whether the Lake Simcoe area is the appropriate location for so much future population and employment growth in view of the principles in the Growth Plan is important. Unfortunately, it is a question that was apparently not considered back in 2006 when the original Growth Plan allocations were made. It is difficult now to imagine that the Government will reassess its original allocation decisions. Servicing and Infrastructure It seems particularly curious that the provision of water and sewer services to accommodate the scale of population and employment growth being allocated here would be left to servicing agreements between lower tier municipalities. Perhaps this is more of a governance issue than a pure planning issue but some serious thought should be given to providing for a County wide servicing agency in order to coordinate required approvals, provide efficiencies, and define priorities, if nothing else. Infrastructure on the scale required to service the proposed development will potentially require significant inter - municipal connections and have costs and potential environmental effects that have yet to be addressed through any Master Planning or Environmental Assessment process. The Amendment appears to assume that at least part of the need and rationale for such infrastructure will be scoped out of any future environmental assessment, however, this would pre -judge the outcome of the required EA processes and, potentially, future decision(s) on Terms of Reference and EAs for one or more individual EAs by the Minister of the Environment. This issue again is one that should more reasonably have been addressed before adopting Amendment 1. The decision to include the Rama Road and Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Economic Employment Districts seems to be based on existing local planning decisions rather than on any detailed servicing or need studies. It is unclear whether these areas are to be privately serviced or connected to municipal water and sewer services. There is concern regarding the impact on Lake Couchiching that would result from the development of these employment districts. "While an Environmental Assessment is underway to support the Rama Road project, a number of EA's would be needed to accommodate the growth and structure proposed in the Amendment. The implications of servicing are essentially unknown in part because it is not a County responsibility." 5 Page 230 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Interim Settlement Areas The oversupply of designated land within the existing settlement areas of most of the lower tier municipalities is recognized in Amendment 1. In order to manage the oversupply the Amendment calls for the identification of Interim Settlement Areas. The Amendment provides for the inclusion of additional lands within the Interim Settlement Areas subject to "municipal comprehensive reviews ". The lower tier municipalities are responsible for identifying the need for additional lands. In the absence of an overall 'regional' market area approach, it is possible to foresee more pressure for expansion of the interim settlement area boundaries. The potential for each municipality to try to maximize its future development land areas and growth is much greater if left to area municipalities to decide. The Ministry has offered up a very sophisticated planning tool to deal with the oversupply of land and the concern is that local development decision making will be greatly challenged. Conflict with Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Policy 4.1 which relates to Sewage Treatment in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan requires that, within that portion of the County lying within the Plan area, an environmental assessment be carried out prior to among other things giving any approvals to development outside of a settlement area. It would appear that the designation of the Strategic Industrial Employment Areas in Innisfil Heights and in the Bradford West Gwillimbury, as well as, the Employment District associated with the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport, would be subject to this Policy. In view of the ecological fragility of Lake Simcoe and in view of the phosphorus load reduction targets and other water quality and water quantity issues raised in the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, it is difficult to understand why a detailed analysis was not carried out before hand to identify the impacts on the Lake of the development being proposed in Amendment 1 and potential effects on the feasibility of meeting the phosphorus target. At our meeting with Ministry of Infrastructure, an argument was made by the Ministry, that adjustments to development areas could be made later based on periodic 3 or 5 year plan reviews. By that time, the environmental damage could be already irrevocable. In any event, it is unreasonable to believe that development areas would be reduced in the future in any substantial way given the growth commitments in the Growth Plan and in Amendment 1. 0 Page 231 of 252 12g) - Proposed Growth Plan Amendment 1 to Insufficient Analysis to Support Policy The Intergovernmental Action Plan (IGAP) for Simcoe, Barrie and Orillia provided a long term strategy for managing growth and development in Simcoe. The foundation for IGAP was a series of detailed technical volumes which supported the recommended policies and directions. In contrast, there appears to be no documentation of the analysis or technical work to support the Province's proposed Amendment 1. The lack of technical support and studies to support the Amendment suggests that little or no analysis was undertaken, let alone peer reviewed or publically vetted (as is usually the case with local or regional Official Plan amendments). The lack of technical analysis raises questions about the implications of the Amendment related to water and waste water servicing, transportation, land use, the assimilative capacity of Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga watershed, municipal finance and the natural environment. We would welcome an opportunity to meet with you and your staff and further discuss our submission or answer questions you may have. To schedule a meeting or for further information, please contact Loretta Ryan, MCIP, RPP, Director, Public Affairs 416 - 483 -1873, x226 or by e -mail at policy@ontarioplanners.on.ca Sincerely, f s Sue Cumming, MCIP, RPP President Ontario Professional Planners Institute Page 232 of 252 12h) - Correspondence received February 3,... G, EC EIV E Presentation To the FEB 211 Pre - Budget Consultation ORO- MEDONTE For -r N Fi P Garfield Dunlop February 2 and 3, 2011 Good Morning Everyone; Garfield, thank you for the opportunity to present to this gathering of community minded leaders. 9 1 My name is Bernard Pope, I live on the Langman Homestead farm at Bass Lake and I have worked as a construction manager for Western Mechanical in Barrie for 25 years. I am currently a Director for the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture for Oro - Medonte. The reason that I am here this morning is to discuss the ten Photo Voltaic Electrical Generating Facilities that are being proposed for Simcoe County and the manner in which they could be brought to fruition. The proponent and any unfortunate landowner that is mesmerized by the sales pitch, euphemistically call these proposals Solar Farms. Before I continue, I have to say to you, that I am in favour of solar energy. However, that method of producing energy, must be placed in the proper locations, not on farmland. For those that may not know the difference in the solar generating energy between the two regimes, please let me briefly explain. The microFit program is generally sized at 10 kw and is commonly situated on an underused corner of a landowner's property or a acceptable roof top. These systems are generally funded by the landowner, with a cost of between $70,000 - $100,000. According to some optimistic souls, each system will be paid for in under 10 years. The FIT program is very much larger and can cover vast acreages and in different styles. These systems are rated in the mega watts and are paid for by developers that either buy or lease. Recurrent Energy, for the proposals in Simcoe County, is electing to lease. These leases are for up to thirty years, and some lawyers are suggesting, that the lease is totally one sided in favour of the developer. As it turns out, all of the proposed sites are destined to go on, what is now, food producing land. Because of this, last May, I started a non - profit organization and I do mean non - profit, that I called Ontario Farmland Preservation, to help bring awareness to the possibility of the loss of up to 800 acres of farmland, in Simcoe County. Page 233 of 252 12h) - Correspondence received February 3,... 2 An extrapolation of farmland loss throughout Ontario, due to the exuberance of the current government and powerful lobbying of companies like Sussex Strategy Group, could top 14,000 acres. Since May of 2010, I have worked diligently, although never enough, to speak with, connect with and generally endeavour to offer my opinion of the dire decisions that are being made by people enraptured with the financial return to few at the expense of the general public. When the Green Energy Act was passed into law in 2009, it effectively stifled the municipalities with regard to the jurisdiction they once held in their local areas. Broad strokes changed wording in law, to advance the cause of this Act, saying in fact, but not these words, that "the municipalities will do what is required to advance the cause of the Act" Would you agree that this sort of direction is wholly un- democratic? I have met with Recurrent Energy at every known presentation, both public and in council, and have found their offerings abysmal, ill- prepared, un- informative and most basically lame. I mentioned earlier that I manage construction projects. In order for me to get approval for the work that I have contracted to do, I must submit to the owner or ( his consultant documents that are called "Shop Drawings ". These drawings or cut sheets show everyone exactly the intent of design and direction I will go with the project. To date, we, after asking repeatedly, have received nothing from Recurrent Energy that resembles anything with which a contractor could follow. In fact, when we ask for field studies for soil science, known as pedology, or for field noise studies, we are told that they don't have to provide them. Recently, I asked Ontario Recycling to hold a public meeting for a proposed transfer station in Oro - Medonte. Fred Taylor, from Conestoga Rovers, complied, rented the hall and brought another engineer, the owner of Ontario Recycling, as well as two managers. On display, were aerial photograghs, site plans, building plans, stormwater plans, schedules, estimates of truck traffic, road bed surveys and a description of the work as well as the number of employees required. The five presenters then entertained questions with direct, informative answers. I believe everyone left the meeting satisfied that their concerns had been met by a future component of our community. We shall see the result of their discussion later. Page 234 of 252 12h) - Correspondence received February 3,... Back to Recurrent. Without factual, scientific, and specific presentations, how can the public understand what will happen and into what they are getting? I am sure that most of you agree that this makes sense, but some may be asking the good question: "What is real science ?" Science is not a collection of theorems, but a process, with the core process being the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method consists of a hypothesis ( i.e. solar energy is equivalent to our conventional power sources) being subjected to a; 1- comprehensive 2- objective 3- independent 4- transparent 5- empirical based assessment. This has not been done, or at least presented, to us. All we have at this point, is a clandestine arrangement between the land owner, the developer, the lobbyist and a government that is intent on shoving its mandated stuff onto us, without checking the facts. Am I being unreasonable to ask for a transparent proposal complete with scientific facts? Back to Sussex Strategy Group Through research, I have found that the length of the tentacles' reach of this company is into many different organizations and offices in the government and elsewhere. Last fall, I was given a document that was supposedly penned by Sussex in October 2010. In it, the text read, that "in order to advance the goals of the Green Energy Act, it would be necessary to confuse the public and the media" Reading further it continued that "in order to `neutralize the Activists' a fund of $300,000 was required" I have no proof of the writer or its veracity, but Brad Duguid has confused me and I know of much frustration at Recurrent Energy, because of our work. Page 235 of 252 12h) - Correspondence received February 3,... 4 Back to the government I have tried to speak with Brad Duguid and only been cut off in mid sentence. We have sent registered letters to Premier McGuinty and the Ontario Power Authority with no response. Under the Green Energy Act, massive subsidies are to be paid to mostly foreign interests that can buy electrical power, currently, through trading, at a lower rate than the public pays. A person better versed in the economics of the electricity market should be addressing this topic. This is the government that is supposed to care for the people, but to many, they appear to be themselves governed by multi national conglomerates. Now to the farmer and the farmland Without a doubt, no question, we have to develop plans to protect all food producing land. We have to develop a strategy to improve the lot of the farmer, so he is able to stay on the land and grow food. Quality, local food We have to develop a program for young farmers, so the joy of producing food can continue, indefinitely. Funds have to be allotted for the proper studies of programs that will emphasize the importance of our agriculture industry to urban residents and we have to listen to science. We have to move to a governmental system that involves experts (scientists) and the public, with the government. Perhaps this would be called `Assisted Democracy'. I have heard that this system works. Folks, the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization have said that the country with the most stable and productive food policy will stand in the best light in the future. I would rather stand on food producing land than have to sacrifice that land for subsidized, unproven solar power. Thank you. Page 236 of 252 13a) - Correspondence dated January 31, 20... St. Thomas Anglican Church 28 Church Street, R.R. #3, Shanty Bay, Ontario LOL 2L0 Telephone: 705 - 722 -7111 Email: st.thomasgrogers.com Website: www.stthomassb.ca January 31, 2011 To: Mayor Harry Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Councillors Dwight Evans John Crawford Marty Lancaster Mel Coutanche Kelly Meyer Dear Mayor Hughes, Deputy Mayor Hough and Councillors, I am writing on behalf of St. Thomas Anglican Church in Shanty Bay to request a grant of $2,500 from the Township of Oro - Medonte to offset the anticipated municipal fee for a building permit for our parish hall renovation and construction project. We expect to take our final design to your planning department in early spring, with project construction to begin in May, 2011. As you are aware, Shanty Bay has no community centre since the School Board took over the existing community space at Shanty Bay Public School for its sole use. Our parish hall, which is the subject of the construction project, already is home to several community groups, including especially the Shanty Bay Nursery School. The hall is also used weekly by a Sparks group, Line Dancers, and a 12 -step program and hosts meetings for The Ride and Drive Co -op and The Shanty Bay Festival. These groups and events, which are only a few of the many activities that take place in the hall, serve the needs not only of Shanty Bay but of the wider Oro - Medonte community. After renovation, which will entail making the building entirely accessible for persons with mobility issues as well as improvements to energy efficiency, we will be able to better serve not only our own congregational needs but those of the wider community as well. This is a role we are eager to expand. You may be interested to know that so far we have been able to raise over $230,000 from our congregation and the Shanty Bay community, so you can see there is widespread support for our project. As the anticipated final construction cost will be more than $600,000, every avenue for raising funds is being actively explored, including federal and provincial sources. A grant from Oro - Medonte, sufficient to cover the probable cost of the building permit, will be greatly appreciated. If you require further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, The Rev. Janet Read - Hockin Incumbent St. Thomas Anglican Church Page 237 of 252 13b) - Correspondence dated January 24, 20... TOWN OF COLLINGWOOD January 24, 2011 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority John Nix Conservation Administration Centre 8195 8 Line Utopia, ON LOM 1TO Dear Mr. Walter Benotto and Mr. Wayne Wilson, Re: NVCA Draft 2011 Budget Notice 0h0P�,pc�-- v Tot'U��o o v COLLINGWOOD Sara r. Almao, clerk 97 Hurwtado St P.O. Box 157 Collirrcpwod, ON L9Y 37_5 Tel: (705)445-1930 F. 3225 Fax (705)445-2448 Finail: sa1mas @collir0% Thank you for your correspondence dated December 20, 2010 informing Council of the NVCA draft budget for 2011. Council of the Town of Collingwood understands the challenges the NVCA faces with this year's budget as municipalities are also faced with similar challenges. In order for the Town of Collingwood to be able to provide the lowest tax rate for 2011 to its residents, we must consider all areas in which the budget can be minimized. Council of the Town of Collingwood passed the following resolution at its regular meeting of Council held January 10, 2011 in response to your correspondence: Be it resolved that Council advise the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority that the Town of Collingwood has concerns with the budget as proposed and request they consider a zero percent increase; and further that the resolution be circulated to the other member municipalities in the watershed." If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, TOWN OF COLLINGWOOD Sa a J. A�as Clerk' SAlbld cc Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Member Municipalities K. Wingrove, GAO Councillor Edwards, NVCA Representative Councillor Lloyd, NVCA Representative Page 238 of 252 13c) - Correspondence received January 31,... Summary of Proposed Copeland Forest ®�" v C JAN J 1 1011 Inventory and Stewardship Project Proposed by The Couchiching Conservancy in consultation O T�NDOPTE with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the County of Simcoe Background Stretching over more than 4,000 acres, Copeland Forest in Oro - Medonte Township is the largest intact tract of upland woods in the Orillia- Barrie region. It is located on the northern edge of the Oro Moraine, an important feature for water quality recognized in both the Official Plans of Oro - Medonte Township and the County of Simcoe. Copeland Forest contains Areas of Natural Scientific Interest (ANSI), and a provincially- significant wetland which acts as the headwaters of three major rivers. Combined, Copeland harbours a diverse and ecologically -rich habitat. It is classed as a Resource Management Area under the control of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). The MNR makes all management decisions for Copeland Forest. The Forest has numerous non - motorized trails, including the Ganaraska Trail, the Horseshoe Valley Resort cross - country ski trails, equestrian trails, mountain biking trails and numerous walking trails used by the community. Diverse activities such as logging, hunting and fishing are also allowed under the regulations of a Resource Management Area. With urban growth in Simcoe County, public use of the forest has increased dramatically, resulting in pressure on its sensitive ecosystems. When the Forest was sold to the Crown in the 1970s, a management plan was developed along the lines of a park plan. Due to changes in government direction, many of the elements of that management plan either did not come to fruition or no longer exist. Most recently, the Lions Club of Oro - Medonte had a custodial agreement with the MNR for the Forest. However, the club has folded and there is no partnership in place to support the stewardship of the Forest. While for many years a low -key approach to the stewardship of Copeland was adequate to maintain the ecological integrity of the Forest, user pressures are ramping up. For example, without permission or planning, mountain bikers have created 65 kilometres of cycling trails throughout the tract, in some cases through ecologically sensitive areas. Future redevelopment of Horseshoe Resort, and most recently the proposition of a $1.6 billion development proposal to create a tourism area called Georgian Valley, will create additional pressures along with opportunities in Copeland Forest. Project outline Working with key partners, including the County of Simcoe, the Township of Oro - Medonte and the Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association, The Couchching Conservancy will do a four season biological inventory and site evaluation to understand the full natural value of the Forest and to guide future stewardship planning. Concurrently, The Couchiching Conservancy will develop a base to create long -term, community -led stewardship of Copeland Forest through partnerships, communication, distribution of critical information and mobilization of local residents and stakeholders. Upon that foundation, it is hoped that the community can develop a self- directed stewardship support system to act in partnership with MNR management to retain and enhance the ecological integrity of the forest while allowing various users to continue enjoying its charms. Page 239 of 252 13c) - Correspondence received January 31,... Project details The Couchiching Conservancy will lead the project, drawing on its volunteer base and staff expertise. The Conservancy will use lessons learned from the ongoing stewardship on the Carden Plain under the Integrated Carden Conservation Strategy to facilitate the creation of a network of partners, user - groups and community groups focused on the stewardship of Copeland Forest. We will begin with a biological inventory of the Forest. From this work, a report will be produced to provide an ecological baseline for the Copeland Forest along with recommendations for future stewardship of the property. That information will be distributed to the MNR and key partners in the project through a communications strategy that includes a newsletter, a web page hosted by The Couchiching Conservancy's website, a series of community meetings and events along with media coverage. At the same time, we will develop a foundation for long -term, community -based and community - led stewardship for the Copeland Forest by connecting and creating a network of interested groups and individuals. A series of community forums, workshops and events will be held to that end. At the same time, we hope to foster a better understanding of the sensitive ecosystems found within Copeland Forest and engender a sense of ownership and responsibility for its care. The work will be focused on creating a network of key stakeholders and user - groups, bringing them together to first educate them on the current state of the forest along with threats to its health. From that network we will facilitate a community forum and create a Stewardship Committee. Through a series of meetings, two of which are professionally facilitated, we will create a list of stewardship priorities and goals. Working closely with partners, we will create a stewardship plan for the Forest. With those tools developed from the grass -roots level, a standing committee will be created to implement the stewardship plan over the long -term. Some of the workshops and events will be focused more on general public outreach and education. These workshops will inform interested members of the community about the project, the findings of the ecological inventory and its recommendations. They will also provide practical training in trail design and the avoidance of sensitive ecological areas within the Forest. Page 240 of 252 13c) - Correspondence received January 31,... T • ��me § 4 {eseaa, e'e ievesaT�ee o• v�MSFecv OTF Grant Application Application Details Application Type Single Application Applicant Contact Mark Bisset Created On 09/06/2010 Applicant Email mbisset @couchconservancy.ca Organization Details Organization Name The Couchiching Conservancy Organization Type Registered Charity Address 1485 Division Road West City Orillia PO Box 704 Province ON Postal Code L3V 6K7 Organization Email mbisset @couchconservancy.ca Phone 705 - 326 -1620 Fax 705- 326 -1620 call first I Summary Questions Application ID 103878 Program Community Grants OTF Request Amount $0 Project Total Cost 0,00$ Deadline hoping to submit for 1 -July -2010 Request Term 24 to 36 months When do you intend to start your project? 2011 -01 -01 Type of funding requested Project or Operating Only Click here to open the Workplan Bud et Expense Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Budget Year 1 Expense Item Type Notes Requested Budget Year 2 Expense Item Type Notes Requested Budget Year 3 Expense Item Type Notes Requested Total Request Amount: $p Your Organizational Contribution Is your organization contributing any in -kind or cash resources to this projectlinitiative? Yes Cash $0 In Kind $0 External Sources of Revenue for this Initiative (if applicable) Number of External Sources of Revenue for this Initiative (list up to five main sources) 5 External Revenue Source 1 Organization Name Oro - Medonte Township Contact Name Harry Hughes Telephone 705- 487 -2171 E -mail info @oro- medonte.ca Status 705 - 487 -2171 Cash $0 In Kind $0 External Revenue Source 2 Organization Name County of Simcoe Contact Name Graeme Davis Telephone 705- 726 -9300 E -mail info @simcoe.ca Status Proposed Cash $0 In Kind $0 External Revenue Source 3 Organization Name Ministry of Natural Resources Contact Name Mark Shoreman Telephone Page 241 of 252 13c) - Correspondence received January 31,... Page 242 of 252 E -mail Status Proposed Cash $0 In Kind $0 External Revenue Source 4 Organization Name Stewardship council Contact Name Telephone E -mail Status Proposed Cash $0 In Kind $0 External Revenue Source 5 Organization Name Horseshoe Valley Resort Contact Name Telephone E -mail Status Proposed Cash $0 In Kind $0 Project Description What do you want to do with OTF funding? Provide a clear and concrete description, including: What do you want to do? Stretching over more than 4,000 acres, Copeland Forest in Oro - Medonte Township is the largest intact tract of woods in the Orillia- Barrie region. It is located on the northern edge of the Oro Moraine, an important feature for water quality recognized in both the Official Plans of Oro - Medonte Township and the County of Simcoe. Copeland Forest contains Areas of Natural Scientific Interest (ANSI), and a provincially- significant wetland which acts as the headwaters of three major rivers. Combined, Copeland harbours a diverse and ecologically -rich habitat. It is classed as a Resource Management Area under the control of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The forest has numerous non - motorized trails, including the Ganaraska Trail, the Horseshoe Valley Resort cross - country ski trails, equestrian trails, mountain biking trails and numerous walking trails used by the community. With urban growth in Simcoe County, public use of the forest has increased dramatically, resulting in pressure on its sensitive ecosystems. When the forest was sold to the Crown in the 1970s, a management plan was developed along the lines of a park plan. Due to changes in government direction, many of the elements of that management plan either did not come to fruition or no longer exist. Most recently, the Lions Club of Oro - Medonte had a custodial agreement with the MNR for the forest. However, the club has folded and there is no partnership in place to support the stewardship of the forest. While for many years a low -key approach to the stewardship of the forest was adequate to maintain the ecological integrity of the forest, user pressures are ramping up. For example, without permission or planning, mountain bikers have created 65 kilometres of cycling trails throughout the forest, in some cases through ecologically sensitive areas. Future redevelopment of Horseshoe Resort, and most recently the proposition of a $1.6 billion development proposal to create a tourism area called Georgian Valley, will create additional pressures along with opportunities on Copeland Forest. Working with key partners, including the County of Simcoe, the Township of Oro - Medonte and the Horseshoe Valley Property Owners Association, The Couchching Conservancy will do a four season biological inventory and site evaluation to understand the full natural value of the forest and to guide future stewardship planning. As a second phase, The Couchiching Conservancy will develop a foundation to create long -term, community -based stewardship of Copeland Forest through partnerships, communication, distribution of critical information and mobilization of local residents and stakeholders. Upon that foundation, it is hoped that the community can develop a self- directed stewardship support system to act in partnership with the MNR to retain and enhance the ecological integrity of the forest while allowing various users to continue enjoying its charms. How will it be done? The first year of the project will be devoted to the creation of a biological inventory of the forest, something that has not been done since the late 1970s. Volunteer groups will contribute to the inventory, which will be conducted by an environmental consultant. From this work, a report will be produced to provide an ecological baseline for the Copeland Forest along with recommendations for future stewardship of the property. That information will be distributed to key partners in the project, and it will inform the actions planned for the second phase of the project. The second year of the project will be a community- building phase. A series of workshops will be held in two streams. In one stream, the work will be focused on creating a network of key stakeholders and user - groups, bringing them together to first educate them on the current state of the forest along with threats to its health. From that network we will facilitate a community forum and create a working group. Through a series of meetings, two of which are professionally facilitated, we will develop a list of stewardship priorities and goals. With those tools developed from the grass -roots level, it is hoped that a standing committee will be created to implement the stewardship plan over the long- term. The second stream of workshops will be focused more on general public outreach and education. These workshops will inform interested members of the community about the project, the findings of the ecological inventory and its recommendations. They will also provide practical training in trail building and maintenance and the avoidance of sensitive ecological areas within the forest. Efforts will be made to build community capacity to care for the forest and increase interest in its natural heritage through a series of guided hikes, the development of a Copeland Forest project web page hosted on the Couchiching Conservancy website, the creation of an e- newsletter, media coverage and a school -based project. Page 242 of 252 13c) - Correspondence received January 31,... Page 243 of 252 Who will do the work? The Couchiching Conservancy will lead the project, drawing on its volunteer base and staff expertise. The Conservancy will use lessons learned from the ongoing stewardship on the Carden Plain under the Integrated Carden Conservation Strategy to facilitate the creation of a network of partners, user - groups and community groups focused on the stewardship of Copeland Forest. A consultant will be hired to carry out the ecological inventory and write a final report on the state of Copeland Forest. Included in that report will be recommendations for the future stewardship of the property. Teams of volunteers will carry out "bioblitzes" of the forest to develop lists of the flora and fauna they encounter during specific time - frames to enhance the quality of the inventory. A professional facilitator will be hired to guide a volunteer working group through the process of identifying key stewardship goals and creating a stewardship plan. Where will the work take place (e.g. which community, neighbourhood, etc.)? The work will take place in Oro - Medonte Township. The inventory work will take place within the boundaries of Copeland Forest which borders on Horseshoe Valley. The intensive community work will take place in Oro - Medonte, though it could involve people from the City of Orillia, the City of Barrie, the Town of Midland, Craighurst and Severn Township. If applicable, tell us which organizations will contribute to the work and what role they will play? Couchiching Conservancy -- lead agency MNR -- technical assistance, mapping, guidance, participation in workshops and forum, working group. County of Simcoe -- Financial (proposed), technical assistance, participation in forum and working group. Township of Oro - Medonte -- Financial (proposed), participation in forum and working group. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority -- technical assistance, mapping, guidance, participation in workshops, forum. Horseshoe Valley Resort ? Orillia Naturalists Club ? Orillia Fish and Game Club? Twin Lakes Conservation Club? Stewardship Council? How will you know you have succeeded? What measurements will help you decide if you have been successful? -- Completion of biological inventory of Copeland Forest along with assessment of site condition and recommendations for future stewardship. -- Creation of community stewardship body made up of citizens, user -group representatives, and key partners (MNR, County of Simcoe, Couchiching Conservancy, Oro - Medonte Township) Creation of a list of stewardship priorities and potential actions. Creation of a forum for community members to meet and discuss issues. — Creation of e- newsletter and webpage. - # of participants engaged over course of project. Rationale Rationale - This is your opportunity to tell us why we should fund your proposal. What will be different as a result of your work? Who will benefit? What the lasting impact of the initiative will be? Why this needs to be done now Why you are the right organization to do the work? Due political and social circumstances, Copeland Forest is currently wide open to ecological degradation in the face of mounting development pressure. Left unchecked, this large, intact forest ecosystem will gradually be destroyed by the very people who love it the most. New trails are being created on a regular basis with no coordination between user groups. Erosion, the destruction of habitat and sensitive species, the loss of biodiversity, all continue to mount. Our project will first establish what needs to be protected, then help to create a community framework for the various users to provide that protection. Built by the community of users, it will more likely be adhered to and enforced by the community. Page 243 of 252 13c) - Correspondence received January 31,... Page 244 of 252 With the creation of a cooperative approach to the stewardship of the forest, the various user - groups will benefit from the preservation and enhancement of the forest which they love. Diverse groups will have an opportunity to communicate with each other and work together to resolve problems and pool resources. Residents around the forest will have a method of communicating with user - groups and participating in the care of this priceless resource which in many cases defines their lifestyle. The municipality and Simcoe County will benefit from enhanced green infrastructure and an improved sense of communtiy. The MNR will have enhanced relationships with the community they serve. The lasting impact of this initiative will be the protection of the sensitive ecosystems of the forest and its biodiversity. The proliferation of trails will be brought under control through public education and cooperation. New partnerships and opportunities will be created that could produce unforseen benefits. User - groups who could be at cross - purposes will have a system of communication to help resolve problems and pool resources. A greater sense of community will be developed among participants with Copeland Forest as a focal point. The working group will be well - positioned to create community events and fundraisers. With so much human pressure on Copeland, the current hands -off management model is not sufficient to protect the forest from serious ecological degradation. Simcoe County is projected to be one of the highest growth regions in the province in coming decades. An enormous $1.6- billion residential and tourist development has just been proposed for the region which includes Copeland Forest as one of its main recreational attractions. The development proposal has raised awareness in the region about the fragility of the forest and generated both interest and concern among local residents. As one of the last large tracts of forest in Southern Ontario, every effort should be made to insulate Copeland from these growing development pressures and retain what biodiversity still remains. One of the guiding principles of The Couchiching Conservancy is that it doesn't matter who owns important natural areas as long as they are protected. The Conservancy has a well - deserved reputation for working with diverse partners to achieve common goals. Since its creation in 1993, the Conservancy has protected more than 9,000 acres of ecologically sensitive land in the Orillia region through partnerships with private landowners and other organizations. In the Carden region, we have been successful in bringing together groups as diverse as cattle ranchers, conservationists and aggregate companies to find common ground and build dialogue. With that experience, with a community support base of more than 400 volunteers and supporters, we are uniquely positioned to provide the leadership needed to develop a community-based stewardship network for Copeland Forest. Continuing Activities Will the activities continue beyond the time of your grant request? If so, how will you ensure that the activities can continue? Since one of the main goals of the project is to lay the foundation for a lasting community effort to steward Copeland Forest in partnership with the MNR, it is hoped that the grant will be the starting point of a long -term process of community engagement. At the end of the grant term, the community will have in place the following tools and systems to sustain a citizen stewardship program for Copeland Forest: - Baseline biological data on Copeland Forest for the first time since 1979; Recommendations as to how to proceed with future stewardship of the forest; A network of community members, user -groups and partners focused on the forest; — A working group which has identified stewardship needs and is well - positioned to become an active community stewardship committee to work in partnership with the MNR; -- The structure for a regular community forum to discuss issues and concerns; --An e- newsletter and web page for future communication purposes, both of which could become stand -alone tools. Volunteers How many volunteers will contribute to the work? How many volunteer hours will be contributed? What will be the role of the volunteers? Copeland Working Group: an ad hoc advisory committee of volunteers assisting with the Couchiching Conservancy's role regarding Copeland Forest 2 Bioblitzes: Expert volunteers will participate in 2 seasonal blitzes of Copeland Forest, recording every species encountered during a set period of time. Workshops: Volunteers will assist in coordinating the workshop participants and set -up and tear -down during the workshops (transportation of equipment, materials, miscelaneous tasks. Most participants will also be there on a volunteer basis. Community Forum: Volunteers will assist in identifying and contacting participants, set -up and tear -down, equipment/materials transportation, miscelaneous tasks. Many participants will also be there on a volunteer basis_ Page 244 of 252 13c) - Correspondence received January 31,... Stewardship plan development group (CALLED WORKING GROUP IN WORK PLAN. MUST BE CHANGED): Volunteers from various user groups and organizations will be asked to participate in the development of a 5 year stewardship plan Communications: Volunteers will canvass surrounding neighbourhoods with information packages about the Copeland community initiatives, contribute to the web page and e- newsletter. Board of Directors Ust Do you have a list of the members of your Board Of Directors? — Select One — Financial Statements Do you have Financial Statements? — Select One — Operating Budget Do you have an Operating Budget? -- Select One — Additional Information Additional Comments Additional Attachments Declaration Section I confirm that: - the information contained in this application and the accompanying documents is true, accurate and complete - that our organization values diversity and the personal, cultural, social and economic benefit that it brings, and that we support and adhere to the Ontario Human Rights Code (as required under the Foundation's Program Guidelines) - that our organizational representative with designated signing authority /decision making authority in our organization has authorized this application I acknowledge that if this application is approved, our organization will be required to enter into a formal, legally binding agreement with the Ontario Trillium Foundation that will outline the terms and conditions of the grant. I acknowledge that I have reviewed and updated our organizational profile. Page 245 of 252 13d) - Correspondence from Dale Moore, Fir... Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Office of the Fire Marshal Ministere de la Securite communautaire et des Services correctionnels Bureau du commissaire des incendies ra Ontario 2284 Nursery Road Midhurst ON LOL 1X0 Tat: 1 -800- 565 -1842 Fax: (705) 725 -7259 February 2, 2011 Office of the CAO ORO- MEDONTE Box 100 Oro, ON LOL 2X0 2284, chemin Nursery Midhurst ON LOL 1X0 Tel: 1- 800- 565 -1842 TeleC: (705) 725 -7259 File Reference /Reference: 687 -17 (Simcoe) ORO- MEDONTE(4323) RE: ESSENTIALS OF'MUNICIPAL FIRE PROTECTION — A DECISION MAKERS' GUIDE Dear CAO /Clerk: The Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) is pleased to announce the availability of the "Essentials of Municipal Fire Protection — A Decision Makers' Guide" seminar. This seminar has been recently redesigned, in consultation with a variety of municipal and fire service stakeholders and related associations, to highlight the fundamentals of municipal fire protection service delivery. The program is designed to meet the particular needs of municipal decision makers, primarily elected officials and senior municipal staff. Please see the attached brochure for more information on this one -day seminar that uses case studies and a resource guidebook with samples of pertinent by -laws and agreements to enhance learning. This letter is being sent to inform you that one of these seminars will be delivered in your area on Thursday, March 14th, 2011 at the Springwater Township Office (map and directions attached). Registration begins at 8:30 hrs and the seminar ends at 16:00 hrs. Decision- makers from your municipality who would like to attend can do so by filling out the attached registration form and returning it by Thursday February 24 2011 The seminar and resource guidebook are provided at no cost, however participants will be responsible for any associated travel, meal and /or accommodation costs. The seminar is being hosted by the Township of Springwater Fire and Emergency. Participants will be responsible for their own lunches. The Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO) will recognize applied knowledge gained from attending this seminar when applying for Certified Municipal Officer (CMO) accreditation, and the Ontario Municipal Management Institute (OMMI) will credit this seminar towards the Certified Municipal Manager (CMM) designation. . . If you would like more information on this seminar please contact me at 705 - 725 -7214. Yours truly, Dale Moore Fire Protection - Adviser cc: Fire Chief Richard Playfair Page 246 of 252 13d) - Correspondence from Dale Moore, Fir... P` � y bto MotleJ ,y�� ESSENTIALS OF F- -�% w m` Q�sPaiy �°� � m O 4 j MUNICIPAL FIRE PROTECTION A DECISION MAKERS' GUIDE Registration Form (SIMCOE COUNTY) The Office of the Fire Marshal is offering a presentation of the seminar, "Essentials of Municipal Fire Protection — A Decision Makers' Guide" on Thursday, March 10, 2011 at the Springwater Township Office, 2231 Nursery Road, Minesing, Ontario, LOL 1Y2 (see map attached). The seminar and materials are provided at no cost, and participants will be responsible for any associated travel and /or accommodation costs. The seminar is being hosted by the Springwater Fire & Emergency Services. Participants will be responsible for their own lunch. If municipal decision - makers in your municipality would like to attend, please fill out this registration form and return it to the address below, by Thursday February 24, 2011 Please register early as space is limited. Surname: First Name: Title: Municipality: Address: Telephone: Facsimile: Email: Surname: First Name: Title: Municipality: Address: Telephone: Facsimile: Email: Surname: First Name: Title: Municipality: Address: Telephone: Facsimile: Email: Please fax back completed registration form to: Administrative Assistant, Southwest Office of the Fire Marshal 2284 Nursery Road, Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1X0 Fax: 705 - 725 -7259 Page 247 of 252 13d) - Correspondence from Dale Moore, Fir... � b e Model qc r P e y fs Delive, ESSENTIALS O F �� vice � .o � O ff ` ' %gas " MUNICIPAL FIRE PROTECTION X DECISION MAKERS' GUIDE A seminar designed to highlight the fundamentals of municipal fire protection R� i� Revamped .. format tailored to the needs of ry. new an-d�� _.. Delivered existing by OFM municipal Fire officials with` a Protection decision - Services 4 � across the making province responsibilities ,. for fire services Essential information to enhance understanding of fire protection needs, obligations and legislated requirements in order to plan for fire protection in Ontario communities. Now booking for upcoming sessions! Watch for the seminar in your area! www.ofm.gov.on.ca i i Page 248 of 252 13d) - Correspondence from Dale Moore, Fir... New/Enhanced Features rJ Learn About: Designed with local needs and circumstances and self - determination in mind A focus.on municipal decision makers - elected officials and senior staff One -day intensive seminar format A facilitated guidebook to accompany the seminar, concentrating on decision areas of most interest and importance for municipal decision makers Includes examples and case studies to enhance learning • Legislation, guidelines and standards • Due Diligence • Roles and Responsibilities • Performance Measurement • Service Delivery Models and Options • Available Support Programs- and Services This program was developed in consultation with municipal officials, related organizations (Association of Municipalities of Ontario [AMO]; Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario [AMCTO]; Municipal Health and Safety Association [MSHA], Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs [OAFC]) and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). Don't miss the opportunity to have this seminar delivered in your area! For more information, contact the Office of the Fire Marshal at b (416) 325 -3100, 1- 800- 565 -1842 or contact your local OFM Fire Protection Adviser. www.ofm.gov.on.ca Page 249 of 252 15a) - A By -Law to Amend By -Law, 2010 - 093,... THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE BY -LAW NO. 2011 -025 A By -Law to Amend By -Law, 2010 -093, "A By -law of The Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte to Provide for the Imposition of Fees or Charges" (Fees and Charges By -law) WHEREAS Part XII, Section 391(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, authorizes a municipality to impose fees or charges on persons, for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it; for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other municipality or local board; and for the use of its property including property under its control; AND WHEREAS Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte did, on the 23 Id day of June, 2010, enact By -law No. 2010 -093 to provide for the imposition of fees or charges; AND WHEREAS Council deems it necessary to amend Schedule D, Recreation and Community Services, of By -law No. 2010 -093. NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Schedule "D" to By -law No. 2010 -093 Recreation and Community Services" be amended to add: 13. Horseshoe Valley Memorial Park Tennis Court Use - Public Time Allocation (annual fee per resident) $10.00" 2. That this by -law shall take effect on the final passing thereof. BY -LAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME, AND PASSED THIS 9 T " DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE Mayor, H.S. Hughes Clerk, J. Douglas Irwin Page 250 of 252 15b) - A By -law to Continue a Citizen /Seni... THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE BY -LAW NO. 2011 -029 A By -law to Continue a Citizen /Senior of the Year Advisory Group for the Township of Oro - Medonte and repeal By -Law No. 2010 -042 WHEREAS Section 224 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, provides that the role of Council is to ensure that the administrative practices are in place to implement the decisions of Council. AND WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to continue a Citizen /Senior of the Year Advisory Group for the Township of Oro - Medonte. NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Oro - Medonte hereby enacts as follows: 1. That the mandate of the Citizen /Senior of the Year Advisory Group shall be: • To act as an advisory body to Council. • To recommend a resident of the Township of Oro - Medonte to be awarded the Township of Oro - Medonte "Citizen of the Year" award. • To recommend a resident of the Township of Oro - Medonte to be awarded the Ontario "Senior of the Year" award. • All recommendations shall be forwarded to Council for consideration. 2. That each year's successful recipient of the "Citizen of the Year" award and "Senior of the Year" award be appointed to the Citizen /Senior of the Year Advisory Group and attend future yearly meetings. 3. That the public members appointed to the Citizen /Senior of the Year Advisory Group shall serve on a volunteer basis, with no remuneration. 4. That the Township of Oro - Medonte's Procedural By -law shall govern the proceedings and activities of the Citizen /Senior of the Year Advisory Group. 5. That By -Law No. 2010 -042 be hereby repealed in its entirety. 6. This by -law shall take effect on the final passing thereof. BY -LAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME, AND PASSED THIS 9 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. Ir: I�• L7: 71.] :7n�r[•LH]�r:I��H�JG69:111•7�•] Z•�i51�I�LPrr�l Mayor, H.S. Hughes Clerk, J. Douglas Irwin Page 251 of 252 18a) - Being a By -Law to Confirm the Proce... THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE BY -LAW NO. 2011 -024 Being a By -Law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting held on Wednesday, February 9, 2011. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the action of the Council at its Council Meeting held on Wednesday, February 9, 2011, and in respect to each Motion, Resolution and other actions passed and taken by the Council at its said Meeting is, except where prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board is required, hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed. 2. THAT the Mayor and the proper Officials of the Township are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said action or to obtain approvals where required and to execute all documents as may be necessary on behalf of the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte. And, the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate seal to all said documents. BY -LAW READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME, AND PASSED THIS 9 T " DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO- MEDONTE Mayor, H.S. Hughes Clerk, J. Douglas Irwin Page 252 of 252