Background
The Beaver Valley Village (BVV) subdivision, planned for the top of the escarpment near the Beaver Valley Ski Club, is to be serviced with individual wells and septic systems. This 45-lot development proposal is in the Municipality of Grey Highlands (GH), in the County of Grey (GC). Google map.
The entire, surrounding 230 ha area, Beaver Valley Village Settlement Area (BVVSA), is designated Escarpment Recreation Area in the Niagara Escarpment Development Plan and deemed by GC to be a focus of growth and “akin to a settlement area”. The NEC has handed over development control to GH. ERA map.
There are 125 approved lots and residences in the area now, and the theoretical potential for 130 – 180 more; this does not include the existing and potential development below the escarpment, which is also part of the Escarpment Recreation Area. Currently, there are no municipal water or sewage services and none planned for the foreseeable future.
The AEMOT Groundwater Study, done post-Walkerton, noted that the study area as a whole is possibly one of the most sensitive in the province, due in part to the presence of karst, making particular mention of the escarpment area of the former Artemesia and Euphrasia townships, the site of the BVVSA. AEMOT recommended in 2002 that there be a groundwater management plan for the area and a commitment to such was incorporated in the GH Official Plan in 2003. In 2011, there is still no plan.
The BVRA supports sustainable development. However, many residents, already familiar with well-water shortages, dry wells, turbid and contaminated drinking water, are worried about the cumulative negative impact to area groundwater from increasing development pressure. We have made two presentations to GH outlining our concerns.
Despite our voiced concerns, GH is currently considering a planning report recommending conditional draft plan approval of the BVV. In the opinion of the BVRA, the report does not follow the recommendations of the peer reviewers, ignores the MOE and does not consider cumulative impact. The GH decision will be forwarded to GC, who is the approval authority. See BVRA critique of Planning Report.
This is a “settlement area” but not a settlement area. This is a focus of growth without a growth plan. This is a vulnerable aquifer area without a groundwater management plan. This is an area with a high concentration of rural wells, but not included in Sourcewater Protection planning. The Ministry of the Environment objects but is ignored. The PPS gets a work-around. The minimum standard is rarely met. Members of the public must appeal a decision in order to be heard. Who bears the risk? Who is accountable? Who pays when things go wrong?
History of Policy-related Activities
The BVRA is actively engaged in policy review opportunities and policy implementation proposals, as we become aware of broader issues through our specific involvement in the BVV process. Listed here is a summary of our policy-related activities.
April 2, 2008
Requesting Council to form a committee of stakeholders to examine cumulative impact of development in the area. Rejected.
June 24, 2008
Requesting SPC to add the Bowles Bluff and surrounding area within Beaver Valley to the “Terms of Reference (TOR)” and complete the subsequent “Assessment” and “Protection Plan” as appropriate. GH approval required. Rejected after consultation with MOE.
November 25, 2008
Recommendations rejected.
June 3, 2009
MMAH referral back to GC.
June 23, 2010
PPT presentation to GH Council.
August 30, 2010
Process ongoing.
December 13, 2010
PPT Presentation to GH Council.
February 6, 2011
Current Policy Initiatives
We have recently sent a position paper on the issue of density to Council, with a supplementary letter to follow.
Today we sent a position/proposal letter to GH Council, copying GC, MOE, MMAH, NEC, GSCA and DC Slade (proponent’s consultant).
We are working on a position paper documenting the failure of the proponent to meet minimum standards of policy, guidelines, and recommendations. The proponent’s eventual compliance with some of these requirements is often perceived by politicians as compromise. Adding insult to injury, delays in the approval process incurred by this so-called negotiating, are seen as unfair and inconvenient to the proponent leading to subtle pressure on reviewing agencies and individuals to expedite the approval process.
Perhaps one of the biggest planning issues evident here, is the lack of opportunity for meaningful citizen participation in the decision-making process. When citizens have a legitimate case but no opportunity for dialogue, appealing to the OMB remains the only option. In such cases, the adversarial solution is inevitable, unfortunate and imbedded in the system. This is a waste of everyone’s time, money, productivity and importantly, goodwill.
No comments:
Post a Comment