Two local development firms are concerned that proposed updates to Grey County’s official plan are too restrictive and will limit housing development in rural areas of the county.
On Nov. 7, Grey County held a public meeting to hear input on Official Plan Amendment 23. The amendment is an update to the county’s official plan to clarify a number of policies and to recognize changes made to provincial planning priorities.
Scott Taylor, the county’s director of planning, explained that the county’s official plan was approved in June 2019 and over the five years of working with the document the county has recognized some areas and policies that need to be updated.
“As you begin to work with the plan, you start to realize what is working very well and some of those policies that might cause confusion and require some further clarification,” said Taylor. “There are some policies in the rural designation that have caused questions.”
If approved by council, Official Plan Amendment 23 would make a number of changes to the plan including:
- Clarify an existing conflict between development criteria in the agricultural designation (which also applies in the rural designation) and the Aggregate Resource Area policies.
- Update the rural designation permitted uses to be consistent with provincial policies, clarify terminology and to address rural special event venues.
- Clarify the development policies as they relate to residential farm cooperatives, agri-miniums, resource-based recreational uses, and recreation or tourist-based rural clusters, including the maximum number of principal dwellings permitted per 40 hectares.
- Specify that agri-miniums are permitted via plan of condominium, but that all other lot/unit creation in the rural designation is to be done via consent, in accordance with the rural lot density policies.
- Clarify the development criteria for residential lot/unit creation associated with resource-based recreational uses.
- Adding a new subsection on rural institutional uses, including criteria to be considered for such uses.
- Adding a new subsection on rural special event venues such as wedding, concert, or performance venues, including criteria to be considered for such uses. This criteria does not apply to ‘one-off’ events or agriculturally focused events such as maple syrup festivals, farm education events, or harvest festivals.
- Update the definitions in the county plan as they apply to some of the above-noted permitted uses.
Taylor noted that the changes, if approved, would apply only to new applications that come forward after the date the updates are approved. The updates would not apply to active planning applications.
The virtual public meeting on the amendment was sparsely attended and just one speaker addressed the matter and raised concerns about the proposed changes.
Dana Kieffer, a representative from Cobide Engineering - a Hanover-based engineering and development firm, spoke to county council about the amendment and said some of the policies in the rural area were too restrictive and could limit much-needed housing development.
Kieffer questioned county limitations on modular home and condominium/subdivision developments in the rural area.
“In our opinion, rural lands are actually a good place for modular parks and that they do provide a great development style that is needed for affordable housing,” said Kieffer. “Perhaps consideration should be given to including these as an “as of right” permitted use on rural lands.”
Kieffer also said the “blanket ban” on condominiums/subdivisions on rural lands does not follow provincial guidelines. She noted that recent provincial policy statement updates allow residential development and multiple lots in rural areas provided water and sewage services can be provided, infrastructure is available and minimum distance requirements are followed to limit conflicts between residential and agricultural lands.
“That’s fairly clear direction that subdivisions and condominiums can be contemplated on rural land,” she said. “It is a very restrictive approach to blanket ban them, in my opinion, because it does limit innovative developers who are willing to make investments in infrastructure that would service these lands adequately.”
Although Kieffer was the only speaker at the meeting, Taylor noted that the county received similar written concerns from MHBC Planning.
County council did not make a decision on the matter at the meeting, which was held strictly to gather public input about the amendment. Planning staff will bring forward a report at a future meeting with a recommendation for council to consider. Taylor estimated that the report will be complete in the first quarter of 2025.
