Comment 27850

By mdesnoyers (anonymous) | Posted December 07, 2008 at 23:10:40

You seem to have missed a couple pertinent facts in your investigation. Under direct questioning from Councillor Ferguson (Murray not Lloyd)in the summer of 2005, staff responded that an Urban Boundary Expansion would occur without having to return to council for approval. I believe it was Lee Ann Coveyduck who responded but I would have to review the minutes. In addition, the province clearly indicated in the letter of June 14, 2005 that they did not support the formation of the Special Study Area and that "the City should not proceed with the Special Study Area component of these amendments". The City choose to ignore this letter and despite the fact that many in the community, like yourself, would like to demonize HPD for launching an OMB appeal, the province of Ontario appealed as well. It would seem that one of the few things that the City has done in adherence to the Growth Plan is to protect the lands around the airport from incompatible uses.

I stand corrected regarding the Planning Act but stand by my statement that the OMB decision,as identified in the minutes of settlement that the City would "Consent to an Order of the Ontario Municipal Board" which not only set out the CLC but also in part its composition.

The Growth Plan and PPS clearly sets out that lands around airports should be protected against incompatible uses. It does not suggest as is often stated in City documents that the AEGD should be the #1 economic priority of the City. To suggest that the province would have included these lands in the Greeen Belt if it didn't support this idea is spreading it really thin. I have reviewed the many letters from Mr. Doyle and although they are supportive of the planning for an Airport Employment Growth District it doesn't specifically state they support the AEGD. This may seem like a splitting of hairs but is a very subtle but substantive point.

The Growth Plan only supports an Urban Boundary Expansion if the need for one can be demonstrated and the City has clearly not demonstrated that need. It has in fact violated numerous aspects of the Growth Plan which ultimately could end up having us up against the province in anouther OMB battle. If you recalculate the projected land needs using the comments from the MMAH in their letter of June 20, 2008 the net additional employment lands required to meet the provincial forecasts is less than 300ha or about 25% of what the city has suggested. At some poin the economic viability of the AEGD has to come into question because of the massive costs to service the area.

We are constantly accussed of being a vocal minority. Are the objections of the province also considered to be part of that vocal minority.

There is no conspiracy - just an abuse of process.

M. Desnoyers

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools