BVRA Progress re: The Beaver Valley Village

March - we wrote a letter to Environment Minister, John Wilkinson expressing BVRA concerns about risk of cumulative negative impact to water quality and quantity from increasing development pressures in our area.

March - the Municipality's Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Study was unveiled.

May - we received a response from Minister Wilkinson acknowledging that our concerns are shared by the Ministry and suggesting we contact Ian Kerr, Water Resources Supervisor, at the MOE regional office in London. We were able to set up a tele-conference to discuss concerns.

June - A tele-conference with Ian Kerr, Bill Armstrong (Environmental Planner) and Angela Homewood (Supervisor of Air and Pesticide and Environmental Planning) provided some assurances, including a promise by Bill Armstrong to do his best to arrange a meeting with the Municipality, the County, the Province and us.

August - Ed and Cathy attended a meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipality of Grey Highlands. The meeting was chaired by Grey Highlands CAO, Dan Best (DB) and in attendance were Randy Scherzer (RS), County of Grey senior planner, Bill Armstrong (BA), MOE, Dwayne Evans  (DE) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as well as Kristine Loft (KL), Grey Highlands planning consultant. Included here are the notes from that meeting.

Meeting August 4, 2011

1. Beaver Valley Village Subdivision Current Status
   DB: There was a meeting with Mr. Kiener’s planner and RS and DB in April. Suggested to proponent conditional draft approval of a 16-lot development. Further development on the site would require a renewed application and would be subject to the results of the Servicing Master Plan and potentially the vision for the community as outlined in a Secondary Plan or Official Plan Amendment.
   KL: Municipal servicing provides more options for a creative residential area.
   DB: Current proposal is very “cooky-cutter”; servicing creates the potential for improvement.
   DB: There has been no response from the proponent (who was not at the meeting) but will be meeting with RS and DB on Friday, August 12.
   Mr. Kiener could decide to appeal to the OMB (50-50 chance), he could stop and wait to see what happens or accept the proposal and recoup some investment.
   
   
2. Grey County (approval authority)
   RS: Recommends the 16-lot plan, with no phasing and with similar conditions as included in the last planning report. He will again discuss with Marcus Buck appropriate conditions and consider the findings of Chris Smart. RS wants to have flexibility for different kinds of development on site made possible by municipal services.
   
   
3. Grey Highlands
   There don’t appear to be any large development proposals in the area (according to the map shown to us at the meeting). Based on the thinking with respect to the BVV, it is assumed that future development proposals would not be considered until at least the servicing study is done and most likely the secondary plan with a vision for community growth.
   DB: Definitely not growth for growth’s sake.
   KL: A secondary plan (or Official Plan Amendment) is up to GH Council and has not been decided yet.
   DB: In the event of no municipal services, the Municipality would again discuss a cumulative impact study in cooperation with the MOE, as happened before undertaking the Servicing Master Plan Study, prior to further development of BVV.
   
   
4. Ministry of the Environment
   BA: Servicing Plan and Secondary Plan need to inform each other. Growth is up to the community, not the engineer.  He cautioned that the first “phase” (16 lots) not prejudge development vision. It might be wiser to have fewer, smaller lots. May need more involved study of the first “phase”. Situation of the lots on the site should be considered. We know that all the land on site is not the same.

BVRA
Before the meeting, the BVRA concerns were the following:

·      While the BVRA supports the vision of the Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan, which includes full services for the Beaver Valley Recreation Area, there are, however, many possible alternatives outlined in the Master Plan including the “do nothing” option; in addition, according to the Master Plan overview, the servicing infrastructure for the Beaver Valley area will probably not be undertaken for at least 5 years.

·      The BVRA recommends that approval of the BVV subdivision proposal include a phasing and monitoring program tied to the results of the Master Plan process and the completion of the approved infrastructure.

After the meeting, we were satisfied that our concerns have been addressed.

What if servicing takes longer than expected to implement or is not feasible at all?

In the opinion of the BVRA, we still need:

·      A cumulative impact study.
MOE, MMAH and GH agree

·      A Secondary Plan for our area reflecting the level of servicing – will be the recommendation of DB

·      Full consideration of Chris Smart report when drafting conditions– RS assured us this would happen