The West End Secondary Plan, Deferred

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of getting your head around it, it was the age of reminiscing over past glories, it was the epoch of the rubber hitting the road, it was the epoch of meat and potatoes of the matter, it was the season of moving forward, it was the season of closed door meetings, it was the spring of hopelessness, it was the winter of an election…

Last night council debated a staff report about the west end of town, a largely undeveloped area of land, still mostly in rural zones and environmentally-protected areas, sprinkled with the usual pockets of suburban sprawl that characterize the outskirts of Barrie, Brampton, Markham (in photo), Newmarket and Pickering, albeit on a smaller scale. It's an area outside the town's "built area" planning map, basically the local equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle, where subdivision plans get approved then vanish into the haze of time. Some of those plans date back 25 years, but are still on the books.

Or perhaps it's more appropriate to refer to it as the 'Wild West' of Collingwood development, since it has so far developed outside the norms set for the core of the town (like active transportation, walkability and affordability), and certainly no taint of heritage has touched the planning or architectural designs we've seen there so far.

For several years, developers have wanted the town to create a West End Secondary plan so they could let loose with their planned subdivisions in the remainder of the land (most of which they apparently already own). But the town has been reluctant to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to do all the necessary studies, reports and zoning changes; the main beneficiaries of which would be the developers, not the taxpayers.

Last term, when council was under Mayor Geddes, a group of developers banded together - an unusual cooperative, since they're generally competitors - and offered to pay $250,000, collectively, towards the cost of those studies to open the area for their development. Council at the time turned them down because, simply put, Collingwood wasn't ready for widespread development out there - we don't have the capacity in our sewage treatment plant or water plant, for one. Necessary expansions to both would be another great expense to the taxpayer.

Early this term, the same developers came back and again pushed for the area plan to be developed, but this time without their promised contribution - all costs were to be shouldered by the taxpayers. That took some chutzpah, but they apparently had their supporters at the table.

There was a heated debate. Creating a West End development plan was eagerly promoted by the current mayor. But despite his efforts, most of council was still reluctant to go ahead, especially since the costs to the taxpayer were much higher without the developers' share. He's mentioned his desire to see the planning get started a few times since, too. Over the last couple of years, it has burbled under the surface and finally returned this March when council directed staff to look at old, approved plans of subdivision in that area.

To wit, the motion directed staff to "undertake a comprehensive report on the process, timeline, potential environmental and infrastructure constraints, permanent I seasonal population analysis and approvals required to remove any proposed development from the Mountain Road West Corridor Secondary Plan Area."

Pretty ambitious, but if anyone was hoping staff would come up with a recommendation to go ahead, he or she was seriously wrong.

Planning staff reviewed all the relevant provincial, county and municipal documents to get direction regarding "expanding development into a new area of the community." The comprehensive report came back Monday. In essence it said the town's not ready for West End development and that doing so right now would violate both provincial and country directives on urban growth in Simcoe County.

In fact, staff recommended that we put the whole thing on the back burner for some time:

Quote

Obviously that wouldn't sit well with the developers, nor likely with the mayor who has wanted to see this go ahead all term. Nor with Councillor Labelle who wanted the motion split into two parts:

• THAT Council continue to support development within the built boundary in accordance with Provincial and upper tier planning policy,
• THAT Council refrain from approval of ad hoc development within the Mountain Road West Corridor Secondary Plan Area.

To which several of us argued that if we approved part one, that part two would necessarily. But the mayor argued that part two made it clear it was about the West End, so allowed it to be split. The first part passed unanimously (we essentially passed a motion saying we support doing what we're already told we had to do). But for the second part, only the mayor and Councillor Labelle voted against.

Ad hoc, of course, means piecemeal, the sort of patchwork, uncoordinated and sporadic development we've seen there in the past - areas that don't link to the town by trails, have no nearby commercial areas or schools, are outside the efficient radius for emergency response, border on or even intrude on environmentally sensitive lands. Why anyone would want to see that sort of development in Collingwood's future escapes me. The vote surprised me, given the mayor's previous resistance to development in the Silver Creek area by Consulate and other developers. Had that portion been defeated, it would have likely given some impetus to Consulate's OMB battle to develop the wetlands.

Labelle grumbled that we were letting "the province and county do our thinking for us" but that's moot. We are a the mercy of the dictates of both upper tiers and there is provincial legislation which clearly decides how we are going to grow and develop. We can't sidestep that or go our own way. The report was clear on what rules we have to follow. Whether we agree with or like that direction is irrelevant.

Ms. Farrer also pointed out that both the county and province have put caps on Collingwood's growth and the currently approved subdivisions already exceed those numbers, without even allowing for new growth in the West End: "County of Simcoe and Town planning staff have reviewed the population numbers assigned to the Town of Collingwood in the County Official Plan and by the Simcoe Visioning document and neither one could be considered to have sufficient flexibility to provide any encouragement that this is the right time for the Town to embark on the preparation of a Secondary Plan. Collingwood clearly has sufficient land designated to accommodate its current population allocation."

So even if we created a development plan for the West End, we'd have an uphill battle getting approvals for any additional growth there since we've already got more than our approved allotment on the books.

As the report noted, the province's Planning Act requires that municipalities give serious consideration to "the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions; and the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; the appropriate location of growth and development; and the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians."

Since we have no studies on any of those areas for the town, let alone for the West End, we would not be able to give them consideration except on an ad hoc basis. And that's not good planning: it's patchwork. Might be good for the developers, but it's bad for the town as a whole community. Our sustainability plan and active transportation plan, our trails network, commercial zones, fire and police services (we'd need a second fire station in the West End for sure) - all have to be taken into account when planning for growth. And we don't even have our urban design standards in place to put some controls on the designs and style.

Just think of the amount of work required to create an area-wide water management plan to ensure that the provincially-significant Silver Creek wetlands is not affected by changing drainage, and is able to maintain its levels and functions (another issue I brought up last night).

"The general principles established in the Planning Act promote development in a manner that is efficient and sustainable, while at the same time encouraging protection of the natural environment."

Our own sustainable community plan - approved by this council - notes, "How a community develops and grows in terms of density and sprawl is a major contributor to measuring the sustainability of a community. It was a key concern expressed by many stakeholders as Collingwood is quickly growing to accommodate an influx of residents. Participants recognized that the current trend of mainly building single detached homes, some multi-unit dwellings and lower density developments in the town centre and surrounding agricultural land has a higher impact on the environment than the option of more compact growth and infilling within the town... Many residents expressed concerns about our increasing reliance on cars in and around Collingwood, which contributes to congestion, parking difficulties, decreased safety of
pedestrians and poor air quality."

On top of the Planning Act is the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which while not law (yet) clearly defines the way the Planning Act will be updated and the directions the province wants to see development in Ontario. In particular, it demands:

Quote

To which the report noted: "Planning Services staff believe that the very clear direction provided by the Provincial Policy Statement is that municipalities should be looking within their existing serviced and built —up area and making the best use of that area prior to re-designating rural lands, and extending services and other infrastructure."

Then add to this the layer created by the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which the the Planning Act also requires council to be in conformity with when making planning decisions. The report highlighted several sections in the Growth Plan we had to consider:

2.2.2. Population and employment growth will be accommodated by:

• Directing a significant portion of growth to the built-up areas on the community
• Focusing intensification in intensification areas
• Building compact transit-supportive communities in designated greenfields
• Encouraging cities and towns to develop as complete communities with a diverse mix of land uses, a range and mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open space and easy access to stores and services.

2.2.3 By the year 2015 and for each year thereafter, a minimum of 40% (intensification target) of all residential development occurring annually within each upper and single tier municipality will be within the built-up area.

• All municipalities will develop and implement through their official plans and other supporting documents, a strategy and policies to phase in and achieve intensification and the intensification target.

2.2.7 New development taking place in designated Greenfield areas will be planned designated, zoned and designed in a manner that:

• Contributes to creating complete communities
• Creates street configurations, densities and an urban form that support walking, cycling, and the early integration and sustained viability of transit services

Complete communities are defined as areas which:

Quote

Then there is the Simcoe County Official Plan (against which our mayor voted, by the way), which states (or dictates conditions):

3.2.11 Applications for re-designation of lands within settlement areas for urban types of uses from Rural, Agricultural or Greenlands designations will be reviewed in the context of the land budget and population/employment allocations for the local municipality and the County overall.

3.5.2 To develop a compact urban form that promotes the efficient use of land and provision of water, sewer, transportation, and other services.

3.5.3 To develop mixed use settlements as strong and vibrant central places and to create healthy settlements and communities that are sustainable.

3.5.4 To promote development forms and patterns which minimize land consumption and servicing costs.

3.5.7 Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Primary and secondary settlement areas shall be developed as complete communities with residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational land uses.

And then there's our own Official Plan, which the report noted:

"The Plan recognizes that the lands within the Corridor are subject to a number of development constraints including a lack of full municipal services, increasing traffic volumes, waste disposal assessment areas and environmental limitations. The policies also recognize the importance of doing comprehensive planning for this area and the need to consider creating linkages with the resort recreational development to the west. The intent of the Plan is that development be limited to that permitted by the Section entitled Relaxed Servicing Criteria and that already designated, zoned or otherwise approved. The intent of the policies to ensure that limited, appropriate growth occurs in accordance with good planning principles until such time as the Secondary Plan issues and considerations are addressed.

"The amount of development permitted under the Relaxed Servicing Criteria is limited to one single-detached dwelling or one non-residential building or structure provided that the adequacy of the proposed method of water supply and sanitary sewage disposal is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town of Collingwood. Minor infilling is permitted provided that the total number of units created is not in excess of two building lots. These policies were put in place to ensure that the vacant un-developed areas of the community are not unnecessarily divided up in a manner that would make the urban expansion which is likely to occur in the long term more difficult."

One single-family dwelling with adequate water and sewage. Developers aren't clamouring to build single lots. They want subdivisions. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of new look-alike homes in zones where everyone needs one, two or more cars to get into work, go shopping, go to school, or attend an event or a recreational facility. Which usually means building "snout houses" - houses where the garage is the defining feature, sticking out in front of the house.

Under section 3.5.2.3 (Municipal Services — Objectives), the Official Plan encourages "progressive, staged development from existing built-up areas in order to minimize the need for major servicing extensions."

A West End secondary plan would have to "establish a preferred land use pattern, road network, serving approach and method of stormwater management, as well as a policy framework which minimizes the potential impact of development on Silver Creek." reports necessary to develop this plan include:

• The secondary plan area's future land use relationship with the resort areas to the west (i.e. Intrawest/Osler Bluff). It is expected that this will include a detailed review of regional growth trends particularly as they relate to permanent and recreational population projections and future residential, commercial and recreational land needs,
• Preferred forms of housing in the context of projected residential demand,(e.g.. higher vs. lower density/upper end vs. affordable housing),
• The preferred form/magnitude of development in relation to the municipality's broad objective to maintain the Town's small-town atmosphere,
• Methods of forging permanent economic linkages between the resort areas to the west and the Town. Planning mechanisms (land use/transportation) for encouraging the organized movement of people back and forth between key business areas, such as the lntrawest village and Collingwood's downtown, will be a key facet of this analysis,
• The transportation needs/demands of the secondary plan area with a focus on regional transportation requirements (e.g. need for/location of a municipal by-pass), design requirements/preferences in relation to Mountain Road, active transportation opportunities and the establishment of an internal system of arterial/collector roads to service new development. Planning conclusions regarding the land use/economic opportunities potentially afforded by improvements to Mountain Road and/or by the possible creation of one or more primary intersections within the secondary plan area (e.g. new municipal by-pass with Mountain Road), will be based in part from the transportation study's conclusions,
• The environmental/recreational needs and opportunities of the area in the context of ensuring the preservation of Silver Creek, Black Ash Creek and Category I - Natural Heritage Resource Area ( Woodland/Valleyland /Provincially significant wetland) in general. Functional and scenic trail and view corridor opportunities, and the desirability of maintaining a generous apportionment of Greenland will comprise part of this study phase,
• The storm water management requirements of the area, which will comprise an important technical component of the broader environmental works and will identify stormwater constraints and the parameters for future development, and
• The optimum method of providing municipal water and sewer services to the areas, ideally within the context of the area's regional municipal relationships and opportunities.

This report says a "substantial amount of planning and engineering analysis would need to be completed before an Official Plan Amendment could be adopted which would remove proposed properties from the Secondary Plan area." Substantial usually means expensive, too. When I asked Ms. Farrer what it might cost to get these reports, she suggested at least $500,000. That's money from taxpayers' pockets that would only benefit the developers. It doesn't even come close to the cost of the sewage and water treatment plant expansions, the added roads, the extra policing, extra fire and ambulance service costs, the infrastructure costs, the snowploughing, the sidewalks, the trails, the additional park maintenance, the wear and tear on existing roads from extra cars... all paid for by you, the taxpayer.

Consider, too, what unrestrained development means to the nature of the town. We could lose our already precarious small-town feel (it's hard to feel or behave like a small town with cookie-cutter subdivisions all around you, and a mall area full of franchises and big box outlets like every other community - how can you tell we're not just Barrie or Brampton?). How much do subdivisions contribute to the sense of community? Or are they satellites where residents feel isolated from the community?

We're pretty much in a planning straightjacket when it comes to growth. As I brought up last night, our resolution will no stop any developer from presenting an Official Plan Amendment for his or her own development. There would be a greater onus on any single developer to justify that growth, and to back the arguments up with studies (paid for by them, not by you). And even if council refuses to allow it, the developer could challenge us at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and possibly win the right to develop in that area.

Last night's decisions were the right ones to make. And one of the few times I've felt proud of this council for taking a stance for Collingwood's future. Most of us, anyway.

~~~~~
PS. The photo isn't Collingwood - it's Markham Ontario, although it could be Collingwood if we didn't apply some stringent development and urban design guidelines to prevent this sort of thing from happening here. The original photo is on Wikipedia. Wonder how far someone would have to drive to get from a house in the bottom row to one in the top? Obviously you'd HAVE to drive because there are no walkways to break up the long blocks, and not all streets even have sidewalks. Walkability score here would be very, very low. Is this the sort of development we want here? i really hope not.