MINTO - Council is opposed to the removal of section 6.4.7 from the county’s official plan, so that minor infilling and rounding out is permitted in rural areas under specific conditions.
In the draft official plan amendment 119 (OPA 119), county staff have recommended removing section 6.4.7, which will not allow minor infillings–the process of building brand new housing units on older lots–on small rural settlements.
Town staff support the focus of growth and development, however, they believe that minor infilling and rounding out should continue to be allowed in the rural system, even if the area is not mapped as a hamlet.
At Tuesday’s council meeting, Bill White, senior planner for Triton Engineering, stated that the amendment on the county official plan is not the same as the provincial policy and growth plan; it’s a lot more restrictive than the provincial policy, as the province does allow rounding out and in-zoning of rural settlements.
“In addition to urban areas, we have small rural communities where every once in a while a little bit of infilling or rounding out development may be required and warranted, and I think OPA 119 shouldn’t be restrictive as to prevent that from happening,” said White.
“By removing section 6.4.7, the county would be able to restrict and limit any future minor development proposals allowed by the provincial policy, because small rural settlements would no longer be recognized. This will have a huge impact on rural Minto and other rural settlements in Wellington County.”
White explained that in the county’s report, the county’s reasoning for removing section 6.4.7. is that they don’t think it’ll affect things because the underlying policy allows development. However, development is only allowed on new lots and not older lots such as the ones in rural areas.
Town councillors recognized the importance of being flexible around commercial developments in rural areas, especially with the incoming growth Minto will be experiencing.
“There’s 50,000-something people that’s expected to come to our area. Where will we house them if we have these restrictions and where do we house them if we don’t have the ability to be more flexible?” expressed Mayor George Bridge.
“The province tells us on one hand they want to be more open and inviting, and the other hand, which is the county, is coming up with rules that’s hard to change and are a lot more restrictive. It just doesn’t make sense to me why they want to be restrictive because if one town can’t meet the growth expectations, then another town has to be able to meet that to keep in line with the growth plan.”
Bridge expressed that having the flexibility around the growth plan and development will also help with the on-going housing crisis the province is experiencing; being able to develop infilling in rural areas creates more housing opportunities.
On top of council opposing the removal of section 6.4.7, councillors also reiterated their recommendations on creating clear policies in the county comprehensive review around urban boundary expansions up to 40 hectares. They also want a policy around flexibility in land supply, reducing boundary rigidity, and to increase land development where there is no increase in land supply.
Council also wants a policy in the county comprehensive review to allow urban areas to be expanded outside the comprehensive review, where population and employment targets are exceeded, including re-allocation of surplus growth from municipalities not meeting targets.
These policy recommendations will be sent to the county’s planning and development department to be discussed for the finalization of OPA 119.
