Citing eroding greenspace and an at-risk woodpecker species, Midland residents opposed an official plan amendment at a recent public meeting.
Located at the top of Victoria Street and beside Monsignor Castex Elementary School, with one edge adjacent to the rear of several Dina Crescent properties, a roughly two-hectare woodlot was designated as "natural heritage in Midland’s official plan.
The public meeting was to address an official plan amendment to redesignate the property to neighbourhood residential and district as it had direct boundary connection to urban development, and to remove the greenlands label. Doing so would establish the lot as suitable for future development, provided conditions were met.
A presentation by town planners and property representatives stated the proposal should be approved as it was consistent with policies and conformed to county and town official plans. A previous environmental impact study noted the proposal wouldn’t impact natural heritage features, but should development be considered an updated study would be better suited.
Area residents spoke in opposition at the meeting, many citing their home address on Dina Crescent and stating they used the woodlot for walks, tobogganing and the building of a tree house.
“That path that you often see that people walk? That’s me,” said Dina Crescent resident Robert Roach. “I walk my dog there daily, twice a day maybe. I’m not saying keep it for my dog, but it’s a greenspace; keep it a greenspace.
"Are we that desperate for tax dollars that we have to get rid of it? Seriously, none of you would want it in your backyard,” Roach said while pointing at council.
An endangered species-at-risk, the red-headed woodpecker, had also been seen by residents who said it would be threatened by development.
Michael Wynia, a senior ecologist and planner with Skelton Brumwell & Associates Inc., explained that the environment impact study said that “specific types of significant wildlife habitat, significant features and so on” didn’t occur in that section of the woodland, as per the government policies.
“That is a bird that is at risk and it has special status,” said Wynia. “It is, however, commonly seen in a variety of urban-type settings. The reason why the report recommends that this be addressed at a later date is that there’s no physical development happening on the property at this point in time, and this bird is controlled – the habitat of this bird is protected by the Endangered Species Act, and the Endangered Species Act comes into play if the habitat is directly threatened by potential development.”
No decision was made and the public meeting closed.
Hours later, deep into a subsequent committee of the whole meeting, a report was brought up regarding the impact Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2024 would have on development in Midland. Despite Ontario announcing it would aim to build 1.5 million homes by 2031, many municipalities had not met their targets last year.
Coun. Catherine MacDonald asked planning services manager Tomasz Wierzba to explain the relation of the 72 Penetanguishene Rd. proposal as per a ‘no-negative impact’ test within the natural heritage designation, with Wierzba noting that by definition of PPS 2024, the applicant would have to demonstrate that “any development occurring on a property will have to have no negative impact.”
“The test for no negative impact is defined by the province,” said Wierzba. “Council’s decision shall be consistent with that definition. Our recommendation to council will also be consistent with that definition.”
Mayor Bill Gordon spoke regarding resident concerns and the impact of the province's 2024 policy statement (PPS).
“We don't know whether it nests there or if it was just pecking away at a hollow tree,” said Gordon. “They’re concerned at the loss of a treed lot, that arguably is private property that they've been availing themselves of since they bought their homes. And clearly they're not happy with the loss of that habitat that they've been enjoying.
“This happens a lot,” said Gordon, “when people buy on to treed lots and there's development proposed, even when you don't see what the built form is going to be. I think the guttural reaction is that you like things to stay the same, and homes – that we all can agree are desperately needed – can be built somewhere else.”
Gordon said that while Midland’s past stance was to engage in Ontario Land Tribunal appeals at the expense of ratepayers, a change in mentality had caused the municipality to try settling outstanding appeals to everyone's satisfaction, with compromise in mind.
“In this case, this isn't a municipal asset; this isn't land that we own ... that we’re contemplating changing use for. This is a private person’s property, and they're asking for an official plan to support use that they want to make on their property.”
He added the province as the final approval authority was the salient point of the night.
“And the county doesn't have public meetings from the residents not wanting homes built next to them or in their backyards. They look at it in a very clinical way” along with PPS 2024, “and the county’s own Official Plan that has all of Midland – every square foot of Midland – as a settlement area.”
Gordon concluded that by obstructing the province’s objectives of 1.5 million homes, potential funding to offset other ratepayer costs could be affected “with more than just a furrowed brow by the Premier”.
The Provincial Policy Statement 2024 report, as well as public meeting information for 72 Penetanguishene Rd., are available in the council agenda on the town of Midland website.
