Standing up for People and the Environment: Province Appeals Midhurst Development Plan

Nov
04
2011
Sigh of relief: the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has appealed the Midhurst Secondary Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). That means no citizen group needs to.

The Province’s appeal demonstrates the government’s commitment to curbing sprawl, defending the Places to Grow Growth Plan, and protecting prime agricultural land.

We were very concerned that the Province would miss the OMB appeal deadline and let this huge Simcoe County sprawl project slip though (government staffers haven’t even settled into their new offices after the recent election, after all). Simcoe County has long been known as the “Wild West” of Ontario development, and the last thing it needs is yet more ill-planned tract housing.  
 
If it had not been appealed, and the Midhurst Secondary Plan allowed to proceed, it would have critically damaged the integrity of the sprawl-fighting Growth Plan. Consider the numbers: the Midhurst Plan would add about 10,000 dwelling units or 27,000 residents. In 2008, the Midhurst population was just 3,500 people. The Province’s population allocation for all of Springwater Township to 2031 is 24,000 people and 5,600 jobs. Despite being wildly out of whack with the Growth Plan’s population allocation, Simcoe County approved the Midhurst Secondary Plan on October 12th.
 
Barrie has reportedly filed for participant status at the OMB, but it is the Province’s appeal and party status that means the Midhurst Secondary Plan will be reviewed at the OMB. It is very unlikely the enormous sprawl proposal north of Barrie can proceed in the face of such opposition.  
 
In a climate where opponents are scared to fight developers, it was particularly important for the Province to step in. A Springwater community activist has been told that Midhurst residents are afraid to take their case to the OMB because of the experience of Innisfil residents who challenged the Geranium Corporation, one of four major companies involved in the Midhurst developers' group, and the developer of the Big Bay Point mega-marina resort. 
 
Geranium and its lawyers are well known in Simcoe County as the corporation that sued residents who opposed the resort development and their lawyers at Big Bay Point for nearly $100 million in lawsuits.

Comments

We would love to hear from you - leave a comment below, or reply to a previous comment. We have a comments policy
Environmental Defence does not endorse any of the views posted in the comments section. By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that Environmental Defence has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that comments are pre-moderated/reviewed and published according to our submission guidelines. Comments that use discriminatory, partisan or inappropriate language will not be published. Comments that advertise a product or service will not be published.
that you should know about.
leave a comment
Your email will NOT be shown on the website.
Enter your website, blog, Facebook or Twitter URL. It will be linked from the comment.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Nov
07
2011

Interesting that the province declined to simply amend OPA 38


Laura Bowman says:

Since the province has the power to simply amend the OPA to conform to the Growth plan, one can only wonder why they would use the costly and difficult mechanism of appeal to the OMB.

reply to this comment
Dec
15
2011

Province afraid to amend the OPA?


newzgerl says:

It would seem that the province is afraid to unilaterally curb the aspirations of Geranium, et al. Someone felt intimidated enough to leave it to the OMB to be the responsible entity, like Pontius Pilot washing his hands.

reply to this comment
Dec
19
2011

Province afraid to amend the OPA?


Claire Malcolmson says:

Could be. I wonder what it would be like to follow this kind of activity in a province without the OMB.

reply to this comment
Nov
11
2011

Sprawl?


Erich Jacoby-Hawkins says:

On what basis do you describe the mixed-use Midhurst plan as "sprawl" and "ill-planned tract housing"?

Are you aware that Midhurst is outside the stressed Lake Simcoe watershed, while the much larger population growth slated for the former Innisfil greenfield lands, now annexed to Barrie, is entirely within the Lake Simcoe watershed? The goal for the watershed is to reduce total impact, which will be hard to do with increasing population and development within the watershed itself.

What characteristics make the Midhurst plan (infill of an existing community) sprawl, yet greenfield expansion of the Barrie border not?

reply to this comment
Nov
22
2011

Midhurst


cmalcolmson says:

Hi Erich,
At this stage I think they're both examples of sprawl actually, due to their location and size, but until I see some detailed plans I can't evaluate which is more sprawly than the other. I didn't compare Midhurst to Innisfil in this blog though. Why are you comparing Innisfil and Midhurst? Yes, I am aware of which watersheds the developments are in, but I wasn't writing about water quality, I was writing about conformity with the Growth Plan, an important process for controlling sprawl across southern Ontario. I do agree that development in Innisfil will hurt lake Simcoe. I would not call the Midhurst secondary plan "infill" as you suggest. It will dwarf the existing town.

reply to this comment
Dec
22
2011

Infill?


Les Stewart says:

Erich,

The Midhurst Secondary Plan allows for the population to grow from 3,500 to +30,000 or +8.5 times larger while removing up to 540 ha (+1,300 acres) of Class 1 and 2 agricultural land.

It is hard for me to see how you can describe a 200 year-old community ballooning from 1,100 homes to 11,000 as "infill".

Also, I don't see how shifting environmental impact from the Lake Simcoe to the Nottawasaga River watersheds as a net positive move. Good, maybe great for some perhaps but on a net basis?

reply to this comment
Jan
10
2012

Neither infill nor sprawl


Erich Jacoby-Hawkins says:

Perhaps "infill" isn't the correct term, what I mean by it is that the development falls (as I recall, anyway) within the existing developed (residential) boundaries of Midhurst, rather than expanding those boundaries outward. This is, of course, in contrast with the Barrie annexation of Innisfil. And I use the term in contrast with the use of the term "sprawl", which (in my book) applies to development typifying the following qualities: low-density, single-use (primarily residential or big-box shopping), unsuitable for transit, etc. The term sprawl generally does not refer to whether or not a development is on greenfield; sprawl (due to land requirements) must always be built on greenfields, but the converse is not necessarily true: not all greenfield development is sprawl. As to the watersheds, it is my understanding that the Simcoe watershed is under much higher development stress than the Nottawasaga (which feeds into a much larger lake system); so when comparing watershed impact, any given amount of impact on the Simcoe watershed is proportionally much more problematic than the same amount in the Nottawasaga.

Just curious: how many of the homes on estate lots in Midhurst are 200 years old?

reply to this comment