SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN

Prepared by:

May 2008

HEMSONC o n s u l t i n g L t d.

30 St. Patrick Street, Suite 1000, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3A3Facsimile (416) 595-7144 Telephone (416) 593-5090

e-mail: hemson@hemson.com

May 28, 2008

Mr. Mark AitkenChief Administrative OfficerCounty of Simcoe1110 Highway 26Midhurst, Ontario, L0L 1X0

Dear Mr. Aitken:

Re: Simcoe Area Growth Plan

We are pleased to submit the following report, which sets outa growth plan for the Simcoe County Area. It is the result ofa thorough, intensive and inclusive study process involvinginput from the public, organized interest groups and thedevelopment community.

In compliance with new Provincial policies, the Simcoe AreaGrowth Plan provides a framework for long-range land useplanning that seeks to build more compact and efficientcommunities, reduce the amount of greenfield land that isconsumed by new urban development and better protect theCounty’s natural environment and the regional agriculturalresources.

The Simcoe Area Growth Plan provides a framework forlong-range planning by defining the amount, location andcharacter of growth to 2031:

• The amount of growth to be accommodated is set outby the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater GoldenHorseshoe (2006). This is the forecast for a totalpopulation of 667,000 and 254,000 jobs in 2031 inthe Simcoe County Area, including the separatedcities of Barrie and Orillia.

• The location of growth is determined largely by localplanning exercises already undertaken, andProvincial planning objectives for the separated citesand complete community development.

• New communities will be characterized by higherdensities, more intensification and limits onscattered rural development. The intention is tominimize the amount of agricultural land consumedby new urban development and protect the Countyof Simcoe’s natural heritage.

The Simcoe Area Growth Plan will be implemented throughthe new County official plan and the local official planconformity exercises. The local area municipalities will beresponsible for planning to achieve the population andemployment forecasts, the density and intensification targetsand implementing other policies for healthy communities.

2

HEMSON

Developing the Simcoe Area Growth Plan is a significantachievement that would not have been possible without theleadership of the County and cooperation from the areamunicipalities. It has been our pleasure to work on such animportant and challenging assignment.

Yours Truly,HEMSON Consulting Ltd.

Raymond J. Simpson, RPP, MCIPPartner

Antony P. Lorius, CMC, RPPAssociate Partner

HEMSON

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE HAS PREPARED A GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. Concerns Have Been Raised about Growth in Simcoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1B. The Province Has Provided Strong New Policy Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5C. The County of Simcoe Is Preparing a New Official Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

II GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY PROCESS WAS DESIGNED TO BUILD CONSENSUS AROUND THE KEY DECISIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. A Committee of Elected Officials Directed the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12B. Sub-committees Were Struck to Address the Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13C. Recommendations Were Made as the Basis for the Growth Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

III THE SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN RECOMMENDS A COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND POLICIES TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

A. Population Growth Is Distributed in Three Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18B. Employment Is Distributed According to Provincial and Local Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23C. Recreation-based Housing Should Be Limited to Specific Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26D. Development of Healthy Communities Should Be a Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

IV GROWTH PLAN NOW NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNCIL AND INCORPORATED INTO A NEW OFFICIAL PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

A. Growth Plan Will Be Implemented Through the New Official Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32B. Detailed Planning Will Be a Local Municipal Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33C. Province Needs to Be a Partner in Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

HEMSON

I THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE HAS PREPARED A GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The County of Simcoe has been growing steadily over thepast 25 years and is expected to experience strong pressure forgrowth in the planning period to 2031. In order to respond tothis pressure, the County of Simcoe has prepared a growthmanagement strategy called the Simcoe Area Growth Plan.

The Simcoe Area Growth Plan was undertaken primarily inresponse to shifting public perceptions about growth, inparticular concerns about the effects of urban developmenton the environment and the quality and sustainability of newcommunities. The Simcoe Area Growth Plan was alsoprepared to implement a number of new Provincial policydirections regarding long-range planning and growth manage-ment in Ontario.

The Simcoe Area Growth Plan defines the amount, locationand character of community development to 2031. Theframework provided in the Simcoe Area Growth Plan will beimplemented by the County’s new official plan, which isanticipated to be completed in September 2008. Two otherfoundation studies, the Transportation Master Plan and theNatural Heritage System Update, will provide similar policydirections on matters related to transportation planning andenvironmental protection.

A. CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUTGROWTH IN SIMCOE

The Simcoe County Area is an area defined as the County ofSimcoe and the separated cities of Barrie and Orillia, asillustrated on the map on the following page. This area isdistinct from municipal Simcoe County, which excludes theseparated cities and the First Nations communities.1

The Simcoe County Area continues to experience highlevels of building activity, mainly because it is a very attrac-tive location for growth. There is a developed transportationnetwork, accessibility from Simcoe to employment centres inthe Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton (GTAH) and alarge potential supply of reasonably priced housing within anarea with many attractive natural features.

Rapid population growth in the GTAH, combined withtightening land markets, particularly in the Region of York,has made the Simcoe County Area even more attractive forgrowth and development.

1 In this report, “Simcoe County Area” refers to thegeographic area of Simcoe County, which includes municipal SimcoeCounty in addition to the cities of Barrie and Orillia and the FirstNations communities. The term Simcoe County, or the County ofSimcoe, refers to municipal Simcoe County excluding the separatedcities and First Nations communities.

SIMCOE COUNTY AREA

Ramara

Severn

Midland

Penetanguishene

Coldwater

CumberlandBeach

PortMcNicoll

Christian Island

Wasaga Oro

Tay

Tiny

GeorgianBay

Elmvale

Orillia

WasagaBeach Springwater

Oro-Medonte Lake

Simcoe

Stayner

Midhurst

Collingwood

Barrie

Bradford-

EssaInnisfil

Clearview

Adjala-

Creemore

Cookstown

Angus AlconaProvincial Greenbelt

Settlement Areas

New Tecumseth

WestGwillimbury

AdjalaTosorontio

Tottenham

Beeton

Alliston

Bradford

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. Settlement Areas as those shown in the Built Boundary for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2008Prepared by Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, 2008

3

HEMSON

HISTORIC POPULATION & EMPLOYMENTSIMCOE COUNTY AREA

1981 - 2006

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 20060

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450(000s)

Population Employment

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.

1. Population and Employment Have Grown Overthe Last 25 Years

As shown below, population in the Simcoe County Area hasgrown steadily since 1981. The total population has nearlydoubled, growing from approximately 240,000 in 1981 toalmost 440,000 in 2006.

Growth has been particularly strong in the more recentCensus periods, including employment, which has grownsignificantly. After growing only moderately over the 15 yearsfrom 1981 to 1996, employment growth in the most recentdecade has accelerated — from just over 100,000 jobs in1996 to nearly 185,000 jobs in 2006.

2. There Is Significant Pressure for New LandDesignations

As a result of continued population and employment growthand the attractiveness of Simcoe County Area as a locationfor urban development, there is strong pressure for theapproval of new urban land designations:

• From the perspective of the development community,the GTAH market is becoming land-constrained withthe result that they believe there is a major opportunityto accommodate additional growth in the SimcoeCounty Area.

• Reflecting this view, there is a growing pressure toaccommodate growth beyond currently planned com-mitments through the designation of additional urbanlands for development.

• As illustrated on the map on the following page, theexpectations of the development community combinedwith the currently approved land supply would result ina 2031 population of nearly 1 million people, whichwould represent a significant acceleration of growthcompared to the past.

• A series of “Enterprise Zones” have also been proposedon behalf of the Simcoe Chapter of the Building Indus-try and Land Development Association (BILD). Theproposed Enterprise Zones could potentially accommo-date more than 80,000 jobs, an amount similar to thetotal employment growth over the last decade.

SELECTED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN SIMCOE COUNTY

Christian Island Population PotentialPopulation Potentialdd

TayTay

SevernTinyMidland

Penetanguishene

Total Population in Proposals

230 000

In Proposed NewIn Proposed NewCommunitiesCommunities

TayTay

Oro-Medonte

Ramara

Orillia

Collingwood Wasaga

230,000

Population inRegistered & DraftApproved Plans

530,000Maple Bay

Pop.: 17,000

Lockhart MapleviewPop.: 12,000

Clearview

Springwater

gBeach

Barrie

530,000

Greenfield PopulationPotential

160,000

Leonard’s BeachPop.: 20,000

Hewson’s VillagePop.: 53,000

EssaInnisfil

P dP d

CFBBorden

Total PotentialPopulation

920,000

BelterraPop.: 6,000

NewTecumseth

Proposed Proposed EnterpriseEnterpriseZonesZones

Adj l

Enterprise Zones

83 000 J b

Proposed NewProposed NewEmployment AreasEmployment Areas

Bradford-Bond Head/Geranium

Pop.: 70,000

Potato DistributorsPop.: 50,000

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. , Simcoe County Planning Staff, Hemson Directions Report 2007 and Employment Lands Development Strategy for Simcoe County, Prepared on Behalf of The Simcoe Chapter, Building, Industry and Land Development (BILD).

BradfordWest Gwillimbury

Adjala-Tosorontio

83,000 Jobs

5

HEMSON

3. Concerns Are Growing About the Effects of NewDevelopment on the Environment

In response to this growth pressure, a number of concernshave been expressed about the environment. These concernstypically focus on the effect of new development on theenvironment, agriculture and water resources:

• Generally, over past decades in Ontario, there has beena growing expectation by the public that the naturalenvironment should be given a higher priority indecision-making for long-range land use planning andgrowth management;

• In the Simcoe County Area, the public and organizedinterest groups are concerned about the effects ofgrowth on the water and agricultural resources, heritageresources, the costs of growth, traffic and demands onhealth care;

• In July 2006, the Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga ValleyConservation Authorities completed the AssimilativeCapacity Studies (ACS) for the Lake Simcoe Watershedand Nottawasaga River. These studies were undertakento develop new analytical tools to manage the growthpressures being placed on the municipalities withinthese two watersheds; and

• In July 2007, the Ontario government announced theLake Simcoe Protection Act, which would take actions toprotect the health of lake Simcoe, including sewagetreatment standards and limits on pollutants such asphosphorous, as well as a new structure for decision-making about Lake Simcoe.

B. THE PROVINCE HAS PROVIDED STRONG NEWPOLICY DIRECTIONS

Partly in response to growing concerns about growth, landdevelopment and effects on the natural environment, theProvince of Ontario has recently undertaken some importantinitiatives with respect to planning and growth management.The new Provincial policy initiatives are made up of thefollowing major elements:

• The Greenbelt Act (2005);

• The new Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2005);

• The Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater GoldenHorseshoe (the Growth Plan, 2006); and

• Recent amendments to the Planning Act, collectivelyreferred to as Bill 51.

Of these initiatives, two are particularly relevant to growthmanagement in the Simcoe County Area: the Growth Planand the Bill 51 Planning Act Amendments. Taken togetherthese are strong new policy directions that the County ofSimcoe and its municipal partners are able to use to developa local solution to growth management.

6

HEMSON

1. Provincial Growth Plan Describes the ProvincialVision for Growth

The Growth Plan has the most significant implications forlong-range planning and growth management in the SimcoeCounty Area. The Growth Plan sets the overall growthforecasts to be used for planning and provides direction onhow that growth is to be accommodated:

• Overall, the Growth Plan forecast is for a total of ap-proximately 11.5 million people and 5.6 million jobs inthe Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), with themajority of this growth focussed in the GTAH wherethe existing population and employment base is concen-trated;

• The Growth Plan also identifies a set of Urban GrowthCentres intended to be a focus for investment,high-density major employment centres and majortransit infrastructure. The city of Barrie is the onlyUrban Growth Centre in the Simcoe County Area; and

• For the Simcoe County Area, the Growth Plan allocatesa total population of 667,000 people and 254,000 jobsin 2031. These forecasts are provided in Schedule 3 tothe Growth Plan and include the separated cities ofBarrie and Orillia and the First Nations communities.1

The Growth Plan forecast neither accelerates nor deceleratesgrowth in the Simcoe County Area, but rather maintains thelevel of development activity that has been occurring overthe past 20 years. A number of key points warrant attentionwith regards to the forecast:

• Overall, the Growth Plan forecast allocations are lowerthan many other expectations of the level of futuregrowth in the Simcoe County Area.2

• The reason is that the Growth Plan forecast allocationsinvolve a specific policy decision to shift growth withinthe GGH towards the priority emerging urban centresin Waterloo Region, Niagara Region, and Wellingtonand Brant Counties.

• The Growth Plan forecasts, therefore, do not misjudge orunderestimate the growth potential for the SimcoeCounty Area, but rather reflect a deliberate policychoice by the Province to not accelerate growth in thislocation. These are the legislated, in-force forecasts thatmust be used for growth management.3

1 For additional detail on these Provincial policy directionsand the issue of growth in the separated cities, see the DirectionsReport, Hemson Consulting Ltd., September 2007.

2 That there is a potential for higher growth in the SimcoeCounty Area is a view widely held amongst the developmentcommunity. As noted earlier, the combination of the designated landsupply and proposed developments could result in a total 2031population of nearly 1 million people.

3 The Province may revise the forecasts in five years, butthis will not occur until after the deadline for bringing official plansinto conformity with the Growth Plan (June 16, 2009).

7

HEMSON

In addition to setting the overall growth forecast, the GrowthPlan also provides clear direction on how that growth is to beaccommodated. Under the Growth Plan:

• Major growth is directed to settlement areas that aredesignated for growth;

• Development outside settlement areas is generallyrestricted, except for some resource-based or recre-ational activities and rural uses that cannot be locatedin settlement areas and in site-specific rural locationswith existing approvals; and

• A set of specific intensification and density targets is tobe achieved — a minimum 40% of all residential unitsto be accommodated within the built-up area after 2015and new greenfield development is to achieve a densityof 50 residents and jobs combined per ha; and

• The provision and protection of employment landopportunities is a key priority. There is a strong empha-sis in the Growth Plan on providing an adequate supplyof employment land to ensure the vitality of the GGHand Provincial economy and to promote the develop-ment of “complete communities.”1

2. Recent Amendments to the Planning Act ProvideAdditional Tools for Managing Growth

Also in response to concerns about managing growth andprotecting the environment, the Province of Ontario hasmade a number of amendments to the Planning Act, collec-tively referred to as Bill 51.

Many of these reforms relate to the Ontario Municipal Board(OMB) and are intended to assist in the implementation ofthe new Provincial policies. Under the Bill 51 Planning Actamendments, municipalities in the Simcoe County Area willno longer be required to respond to development applicationsto expand urban boundaries or change land use designationsas they have in the past.

3. Local Municipalities Have Also Been Taking aLeadership Role

In response to growth pressure, some local municipalities inthe Simcoe County Area have become involved in exercisesto accelerate growth beyond their current commitments.Some of the initiatives include:

• Investments in servicing infrastructure to improve orupgrade existing systems;

• Expansions of designated settlement areas to increasethe supply of land for development, including additionalland for employment purposes;

1 Defined in the Growth Plan. Generally, a “completecommunity” is one that has an appropriate mix of jobs, local servicesand housing, community infrastructure and affordable housing,schools, recreation and open space and convenient access to publictransportation.

8

HEMSON

• Approval of local official plan amendments, includinga number of applications for seasonal, lifestyle or“recreation-based” housing outside of designated settle-ment areas; and

• A number of growth management studies or official planreview processes prepared to support local planning forhigher levels of growth.

Much of this activity, however, was initiated prior to recentamendments to the Planning Act, when local municipalitieswere obliged to respond to privately-led applications forurban expansion.

4. Provincial Policies Provide the Tools to Develop aComprehensive Framework to Manage Growth

Typically in a growth management exercise, three questionsneed to be answered: how much growth should be accommo-dated? Where should that growth be accommodated? Andwhat form should it take? Taken together, the new Provincialpolicy directions provide a significant amount of guidance foraddressing these questions:

• The Provincial Growth Plan sets the overall growthforecast to be used for long-range planning, typicallyone of the most contentious elements of any long-rangeplanning exercise;

• The Growth Plan also requires that a set of “good plan-ning” principles be adhered to, including a more com-pact urban form, higher densities and a greater level ofintensification;

• Recent Planning Act amendments provide a greaterability for the County and its local municipal partnersto implement these new objectives; and

• Simcoe County has been instructed by the Province todevelop an area-wide solution to growth managementwithin this context, notwithstanding that Barrie andOrillia are separated cities and outside of the County’splanning jurisdiction.

In response to the public’s concern about growth, and toimplement new Provincial policy directions, Simcoe Countyhas developed a comprehensive growth management frame-work to guide the implementation of current planningcommitments and address pressure for development outsidethe designated settlement areas. This framework is called theSimcoe Area Growth Plan and provides key input anddirection to the County’s new official plan.

C. THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE IS PREPARING ANEW OFFICIAL PLAN

The Simcoe Area Growth Plan will provide input anddirection to the new County official plan by setting out theoverall urban structure of the County and other policiesrequired to manage growth. Two other major studies are alsobeing undertaken as input to the preparation of the newofficial plan: the Transportation Master Plan and the NaturalHeritage System Update.

9

HEMSON

1. County Planning Sets the Broad Framework forDevelopment and Land Use

The role of the County of Simcoe official plan is to set thebroad policy framework for development and land use,including the growth and development of the community.The County is also the approval authority for local land useplanning applications. One of the main challenges toplanning in Simcoe County, however, is that the Countylacks many of the tools for growth management, particularlywith respect to the delivery of services. For example:

• While the County provides a number of municipalservices such as long-term care and paramedic services,social housing and waste management, water andwastewater systems are managed locally;

• The local municipalities also provide other communityservices such as fire, libraries, parks and recreation andpolice services; and

• Community and health care services are delivered byother agencies, including the Simcoe Muskoka DistrictHealth Unit and hospital boards.

As a result of the wide range of service providers and fundingarrangements, growth management and long-range planningin Simcoe County must be undertaken in a cooperative andcollaborative manner .1

2. New Official Plan Must Conform with NewProvincial Policies

The County’s new official plan will also need to conformwith new Provincial Policies, in particular the PPS (2005)and Provincial Growth Plan:

• The PPS requires that a coordinated approach be takento addressing issues that cross municipal boundaries,including infrastructure and public services, environ-mental issues and housing and employment growthprojections;

• In the case of a two-tier planning system, the PPSassigns the responsibility for coordinating and allocatingsuch growth projections to upper-tier governments, inconsultation with lower-tier governments; and

• The Growth Plan also requires that upper-tier munici-palities allocate growth projections to the lower-tiermunicipalities, identify intensification and densitytargets and provide policy direction on matters thatcross municipal boundaries.

Under the Places to Grow Act, the deadline for bringing theCounty official plan into conformity with the Growth Plan isJune 16, 2009. It is the County’s intention to complete itsofficial plan in advance of this date, in order to give localmunicipalities sufficient time to bring their plans intoconformity with the County’s plan.

1 For detail see the 2006 Municipal Services BackgroundReport. See Appendix A for references for the four BackgroundReports prepared in 2006.

10

HEMSON

3. Simcoe Area Growth Plan Is One of Three StudiesBeing Prepared for the New Official Plan

The Simcoe Area Growth Plan is one of three major piecesof work that are being undertaken as part of the County’sofficial plan review. The other two studies are:

• The Transportation Master Plan, which will develop afuture vision for transportation in Simcoe, including avision for the role that pedestrian, cycling, transit androad components can play in servicing future transpor-tation needs; and

• The Natural Heritage System Update, which will updatethe key features and functional elements of the naturalheritage of the County, currently mapped as greenlandsin the official plan (1999).

The major lakes of Simcoe and Couchiching as well asGeorgian Bay and surface and groundwater supply arealso considered important components of the County’secological system. The Natural Heritage System Updatewill refine and update the County’s current greenlandsas part of the new official plan.

The remainder of this report describes the Simcoe AreaGrowth Plan and is structured around three sections:

• The second chapter describes the study process whichwas designed to build consensus around a small numberof key issues;

• The third chapter describes the Simcoe Area GrowthPlan including the amount and distribution of growthand policies for community form; and

• The final chapter addresses implementation, includingthe role that the County, local municipalities and theProvince will need to play.

It is important to note that the Simcoe Area Growth Plan isnot a detailed land use plan. It is a strategic-level foundationstudy for the County’s official plan review process which willbe implemented through the official plan and land useschedules therein. It will also be implemented through thenew official plans of the local municipalities in municipalSimcoe County.

It is also important to note that, although this is a plan forthe Simcoe County Area, the County of Simcoe does nothave the authority to make planning decisions for the citiesof Barrie and Orillia or First Nations communities. Thesecommunities were included in the study process only for thepurposes of addressing the distribution of growth which wasnecessary to satisfy the Province’s request that the County ofSimcoe develop a local solution to growth management.

11

HEMSON

II GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY PROCESS WAS DESIGNED TO BUILD CONSENSUS AROUNDTHE KEY DECISIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE

The most significant challenge to managing growth inSimcoe County is the complex decision-making environmentand wide range of interests involved:

• The Province, the public and concerned stakeholdergroups are resisting urban expansion in favour of higherdensities, more intensification and a more efficient useof the existing land supply;

• Local municipalities are interested in playing a leaders-hip role in managing growth; and

• The development industry is pushing for new urbanland designations and in some cases entirely newcommunities.

The County of Simcoe recognized that effectively developinga growth management strategy within this context requiresan approach that brought order and clarity to the issues andengaged the various political and decision-making interestsin the study process. It was also recognized that the specifictechnical issues regarding growth management in the SimcoeCounty Area had already been largely addressed. Some of themajor studies and reports already undertaken on the matterof growth management include:

• The Population, Households and Employment ForecastsUpdate report prepared for the County of Simcoe byHemson Consulting Ltd. in May 2004.

• The work and various reports prepared as part of theProvincial Intergovernmental Action Plan (IGAP) studyprocess.

• The Assimilative Capacity Studies (ACS) for the LakeSimcoe Watershed and Nottawasaga River prepared bythe Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga Valley ConservationAuthorities completed at the end of 2006;

• The growth management background reports preparedin the summer of 2006;

• The Assessment of Water Supply and Wastewater Treat-ment Facilities undertaken for the County of Simcoe inAugust 2007; and

• The range of technical work and supporting documenta-tion prepared as input to the 16 local official plans inSimcoe County, including analyses of servicing capac-ity, municipal finance, long-range land use planningand environmental protection.1

1 A bibliography of the various reports and studies that havealready been undertaken is provided in Appendix A.

12

HEMSON

A. A COMMITTEE OF ELECTED OFFICIALSDIRECTED THE STUDY

Given the complex decision-making environment and thatmuch of the technical work had already been completed, theCounty of Simcoe decided to structure a growth managementstudy process as a consensus-building exercise. The primaryobjective was to make decisions around a small number ofkey growth management issues — mainly how much, andwhere the growth should go — rather than undertakeadditional technical analyses.

1. This Growth Management Study Was Initiated inthe Summer of 2006

The County’s growth management strategy originally beganwith the preparation of the Population, Households andEmployment Forecasts Update report by Hemson ConsultingLtd. in May 2004.1

The 2004 forecast update report presented a “current trends”forecast scenario and recommended that a comprehensivegrowth management exercise be undertaken. The reportrecognized that the Simcoe County Area was under signifi-cant growth pressure, and that a strategy for managing thatgrowth needed to be put in place.

Based on the 2004 report, the County had initiated a processto develop such a strategy, but delayed that work in order toparticipate in the Provincial IGAP study process, which wascompleted in the summer of 2006. At the same time, theProvince was also finalizing the Growth Plan for the GGH.

Building on the momentum generated by IGAP and newProvincial policies, the County of Simcoe initiated thisgrowth management study in the summer of 2006, beginningwith series of background reports and growth managementworkshops that were held with local Councilors and staffduring the summer of 2006.2

2. In 2007 a Committee of Elected Officials WasEstablished to Direct The Study Process

Arising out of the 2006 County growth management work-shops was a clear direction that a steering committee ofelected officials should be established to direct the growthmanagement study process. Accordingly, the Growth ProcessSteering Committee was established by County Council inMarch 2007.

1 For details, see the Population, Households andEmployment Forecasts Update report by Hemson Consulting Ltd.,May 2004.

2 Four background reports were prepared: the ProvincialPolicies Background Report; the Housing Services BackgroundReport; the Hard Services Background Report; and the MunicipalServices Background Report. Councillors and staff from localmunicipalities also participated in a facilitated round-table meeting todiscuss the IGAP recommendations.

13

HEMSON

The cities of Barrie and Orillia were invited to participate inthe Growth Process Steering Committee. The city of Orilliaparticipated and the city of Barrie elected to have observerstatus at the meetings.

The role of the Growth Management Steering Committee isto provide overall guidance to the development of growthmanagement plans and policies, which would become part ofthe County’s new official plan, which will set out the visionand legal framework for long-range planning for growth inthe County of Simcoe.

B. SUB-COMMITTEES WERE STRUCK TO ADDRESSTHE KEY ISSUES

The Growth Process Steering Committee was also given themandate to strike appropriate working groups orsub-committees as part of the study process to address the keygrowth management issues to be resolved.1

Accordingly, the key issues were identified in the 2007Directions Report and a number of sub-committees were struckto address them. A program of community and stakeholderconsultations was also undertaken, including public meetings,forums with the development community and organizedinterests and consultation with local municipalities.

1. Directions Report Was Prepared to Identify theKey Growth Management Issues

The Directions Report was finalized in September 2007. Thereport describes the implications of the Provincial GrowthPlan, the key growth management issues that needed to beaddressed and the key tasks that needed to be undertaken toaddress them. These are summarized below.

• The key task that needed to be undertaken was todetermine the community structure for the SimcoeCounty Area. To do this, the issue of the distribution ofgrowth to the local municipalities, including the citiesof Barrie and Orillia, needed to be addressed.

• Other tasks that needed to be undertaken included thesetting of density and intensification targets, anddetermination of the need for employment land and roleof seasonal and recreational housing.

• The Directions Report also identified a need to examinethe argument that growth was “required” to improve thecommunity’s fiscal position, or to provide other benefitsto the community.

In terms of approach, the Directions Report suggested that anumber of sub-committees be established to deal with thesetopics, and that a stakeholder involvement and communica-tions strategy be developed. Members of the Steering Com-mittee also indicated a desire to include healthy lifestyleconsiderations in the determination of future communitystructure. This is the approach that was taken. 1 The membership, terms of reference and mandate of the

growth process sub-committees and the Growth Process SteeringCommittee are provided in Appendix B.

14

HEMSON

2. Five Sub-Committees Were Established

Implementing the recommendations of the Directions Report,five sub-committees were struck to address the key issues andmake recommendations to the overall Growth Process SteeringCommittee. The five growth process sub-committees that wereestablished were:

• The Health and Lifestyles sub-committee; • The Municipal Finance sub-committee; • The Community Structure sub-committee; • The Employment Land sub-committee; and • The Seasonal, Recreational, Institutional Housing

sub-committee.

The sub-committees were not decision-making bodies, butrather their role was to examine specific issues and makerecommendations that would be considered by the GrowthProcess Steering Committee. To this end, the growth processsub-committees met more than 20 times during late 2007 andearly 2008 to review and deliberate on the key issues:

• The Health and Lifestyles sub-committee met onOctober 16, 2007; November 13, 2007; and January 23,2008;

• The Municipal Finance sub-committee met on October16, 2007; November 6, 2007; November 26, 2007;January 18, 2008; February 11, 2008; and February 22,2008;

• The Community Structure sub-committee met onOctober 15, 2007; November 20, 2007; February 6,2008; March 6, 2008; and March 26, 2008;

• The Employment Land sub-committee met on October15, 2007; November 22, 2007; February 4, 2008; andMarch 13, 2008; and

• The Seasonal, Recreational, Institutional Housingsub-committee met on October 18, 2007; November 29,2007; February 12, 2008; and March 18, 2008.

3. A Program of Public Consultation Was AlsoUndertaken

In addition to the meetings and deliberations of the sub-committees, a program of community and stakeholderconsultations was undertaken during the fall of 2007. Theprogram included:

• Presentations of the 2007 Directions Report to localmunicipal Councils in Simcoe County through Septem-ber and October 2007;

• A series of four public meetings: October 16, 2007 atthe Elmvale Community Centre; October 18, 2007 atthe Thornton Arena; October 22, 2007 at the BarrieCounty Club; and October 23, 2007 at the OrilliaHighwayman Inn; and

• A forum for the development community on October25, 2007 in the County Council Chambers and for theorganized interest groups on October 27, 2007 also inthe County Council Chambers.

15

HEMSON

Throughout the study process, opportunities for writtensubmissions were provided through the County’s growth planwebsite at www.growth.simcoe.ca. Input was also sought fromlocal area planners and senior management and other localstakeholders, including;

• Working sessions with the local municipal planners;

• A working session with local municipal Chief Adminis-trative Officers; and

• Consultation with the First Nations communities.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE AS THEBASIS FOR THE GROWTH PLAN

Through the sub-committee meetings and deliberations,assistance was provided, as necessary, by Hemson ConsultingLtd. in the form of analyses and meeting facilitation. Wherenew technical information was required, analysis was under-taken. In particular:

• A municipal fiscal impact analysis was undertaken toestimate the effects of different growth scenarios on acommunity’s financial position;

• An estimate of 2006 seasonal or recreation-based unitswas prepared as input to the development of policies forthis type of development;

• An analysis of existing Growth Plan densities in SimcoeCounty was undertaken as input to the determinationof the density targets;

• An analysis of employment growth by major type wasundertaken as input to the estimates of future employm-ent land requirements; and

• An analysis of the 2006 Census population, housing andemployment figures was undertaken as input to thedistribution of growth scenarios.

As a result of the work of the sub-committees, input from thecommunity and local municipalities and assistance fromHemson Consulting Ltd., recommendations were preparedand presented to the Growth Process Steering Committee onMarch 27, 2008.

With some minor modifications, amendments and additions,the sub-committee recommendations were approved by theGrowth Process Steering Committee in March, 2008 and thenby the Corporate Services Committee in April 2008. Theserecommendations were used as the basis for the preparationof a draft Simcoe Area Growth Plan, which was presented tothe public for review and comment at a series of open housesin late April 2008.1

1 Three open houses were held: April 24th,2008, inMidland; April 25th, 2008 in Midhurst; and April 29th, 2008 inAlliston. Feedback was also received from the local area planners andChief Administrative Officers at two meetings in late April 2008.

16

HEMSON

Nearly 500 people attended the open houses. The publicresponded well to the draft growth plan. In particular:

• The public supported the notion that the draft growthplan was not “business as usual” and is proposing majorchanges to the amount of growth to be accommodatedand the form that future growth will take; and

• There also appeared to be strong public support for theenforcement of aggressive density and intensificationtargets in order to reduce the amount of greenfield landconsumed by urban development and protect theregional agricultural resources.

Questions were raised, however, about the role of growthmanagement in environmental protection. The Simcoe AreaGrowth Plan recognizes the current County Greenlandssystem, which applies to approximately one-third of theCounty land area.

As the Simcoe Area Growth Plan is not recommending thedesignation of new settlement areas, no change will occur tothe County greenlands system. In fact, it is anticipated thatthe Greenlands system will be strengthened through theNatural Heritage System update and County official planreview process.

Generally, the local municipalities were also in support of thedraft growth plan. Concerns, however, have been expressedby both the local planners and Chief Administrative Officersregarding implementation issues. Particularly, concerns havebeen raised about the relatively low growth forecasts and thedensity and intensification targets

The development community has raised the same concernsregarding the level of growth and its distribution to the localmunicipalities. Arguments are being made that the distributi-on of growth should better reflect local planning aspirations,including plans for development beyond current commit-ments and County-approved population targets.

The solution to such concerns is for higher population andemployment allocations for the Simcoe County Area. Sincethis would be contrary to the Places to Grow Act, no optionsfor higher levels of growth have been considered. The nextchapter discusses the growth plan to be used in developingthe new County official plan.1

1 Taken together, it is clear that a “bottom up” approach topopulation allocation alone would result in an overall County-wideforecast in excess of the Provincial forecast allocations. For additionaldetail on the feedback received from the public, the area municipalitiesand other interested stakeholders, please refer to County staff reportGPS 08-007 regarding proposed modifications to the GrowthManagement Plan following Public Open Houses.

17

HEMSON

III THE SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN RECOMMENDS A COMMUNITY STRUCTURE ANDPOLICIES TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

The Simcoe Area Growth Plan has been developed withinthe context of the approach and Provincial direction de-scribed in the previous chapter. Within this context, thischapter discusses the three tasks that needed to be completedto develop the Simcoe Area Growth Plan:

• Determine the distribution of the overall Growth Planpopulation and employment growth forecasts to thelocal municipalities within Simcoe County;

• Develop policies for recreation-based housing; and

• Develop policies for the development of healthy com-munities, includingthe density and intensificationtargets that will guide future development.

With respect to the first task, there is little room for debate.The overall amount of growth for the Simcoe County Areais determined by the Provincial Growth Plan, as it is for theother upper-tier communities within the GGH.

The key growth management issue addressed in the SimcoeArea Growth Plan is the distribution of this growth, which isdiscussed in the following sections. Also discussed are therecommended policies for recreation-based housing and forthe development of healthy communities

It is important to note, again, that the County, in order todevelop an area-wide plan, has undertaken to distribute the"unallocated" components of both population and employ-ment growth shown in the Provincial disaggregation of theGrowth Plan Schedule 3 forecasts. An alternative distributionof growth may need to be considered based on further inputfrom the Province.

The distribution of population growth is based on the overallGrowth Plan forecast allocation for a total of 667,000 peopleand 254,000 jobs in 2031. This represents a growth ofapproximately 228,400 people from the 2006 Census totalpopulation of 438,600, and a growth of approximately 70,500jobs from the 2006 Census employment of 183,500.

18

HEMSON

With respect to the issue of growth in the separated cities ofBarrie and Orillia, the Province provided additional guidanceon appropriate figures to be used for Barrie and Orillia. TheProvincial disaggregation of the Growth Plan forecasts issummarized below.1

Table 1Distribution of Population and Employment Simcoe County Area, 2001 to 2031 (000s)

Population 2001 2031

Simcoe County City of BarrieCity of OrilliaUnallocated Growth Aggregated Forecasts

25410830

0392

40618041

40667

Employment 2001 2031

Simcoe County City of BarrieCity of OrilliaUnallocated Growth Aggregated Forecasts

855316

0154

1328821

13254

Source: Ontario Growth Secretariat, 2008

A. POPULATION GROWTH IS DISTRIBUTED INTHREE STEPS

The method for distributing population growth is made up ofthree steps. The first step is for each local municipality toachieve its approved official plan population target. Thesecond step is to address the issue of growth in the separatedcities, which was determined through Provincial negotia-tions. Together, these two steps result in the distribution ofapproximately 80% of growth. The remaining growth isdistributed based on patterns of market demand.

1. Majority of Growth Is Distributed Based onExisting Local Official Plan Commitments

The majority of this population growth in Simcoe County isallocated based on approved official plan forecasts for eachlocal municipality. The total of the local official planforecasts is approximately 607,800 people, representinggrowth of approximately 169,200 people from the 2006population of 438,600 or 75% of the total growth to bedistributed.

This is considered an appropriate approach to the distribu-tion of growth for many reasons:

1 The disaggregation of the Schedule 3 forecast allocationsis provided in a letter from the Ontario Growth Secretariat datedJanuary 16, 2008 and is attached as Appendix C. An “unallocated”portion of growth is shown in the disaggregation.

19

HEMSON

• The approved official plan forecasts are an indication ofeach community’s growth aspirations;

• The plans involved extensive technical analyses,consideration of the environment, community consulta-tion and stakeholder involvement and were all preparedthrough a legislated public process;

• Included in the background analyses to the local officialplans is a number of studies regarding servicing capacityand the ability to accommodate growth;

• The approved local official plans are in conformity withthe County greenlands; and

• The local official plans have legal status. They werereviewed by a wide range of Provincial and otheragencies and ultimately approved by the County ofSimcoe or the Province.

2. Growth in Separated Cities Was DeterminedThrough Provincial Negotiations

The next step is to address the issue of growth in the sepa-rated cities. According to the Province, the 2031 populationsfor the city of Barrie and city of Orillia are identified as180,000 and 41,000, respectively. The city of Orillia popula-tion is maintained at 41,000. Some additional growth,however, has been allocated to the city of Barrie:

• An additional 5,000 in population has been allocated tothe city of Barrie through this exercise, consistent withProvincial Growth Plan objectives for intensificationand the identification of the city of Barrie as an urbangrowth centre.

• A population of 185,000 represents an additional10,000 in population beyond the approved official plantarget of 175,000, to be accommodated within thecurrent urban boundary through intensification

• Allocating an additional 5,000 population to the city ofBarrie is intended to ensure that the intensificationpotential of the major urban centre within SimcoeCounty is maximized. It is also a rough approximationof the ultimate population should the City achieve theGrowth Plan target of 40% intensification within thebuilt-up area.

Again, however, it must be noted that the allocation to thecity of Barrie is undertaken on the assumption of a fixedurban boundary and solely for the purposes of establishing adistribution of growth for the other communities in SimcoeCounty. Should any future adjustments be made to thecurrent urban boundary, the 2031 population for the city ofBarrie will likely need to be modified as part of a futureplanning exercise.

20

HEMSON

3. Remaining Growth Is Distributed Based onPatterns of Market Demand

Taking the two steps of allocating most of the growthaccording to existing official plan commitments, and someadditional growth to the city of Barrie, results in the distribu-tion of approximately 179,200 people, or approximately 80%of the total growth to be distributed.

The remaining 20% of growth, or approximately 49,200people, is allocated primarily according to observed patternsof market demand. Criteria related to the municipal fiscalimpacts of growth, servicing capacity or environmentalplanning were not considered to be a determinative factor forallocating growth within Simcoe County:

• Based on analysis undertaken by Hemson ConsultingLtd. it was determined that the municipal fiscal impactsof growth were neutral to only slightly positive forcommunities in Simcoe County. This is consistent withanalyses undertaken by Hemson Consulting Ltd. inother southern Ontario jurisdictions.

• In other words, growth is not “required” to improve acommunity’s fiscal position, including non-residentialgrowth (i.e. employment lands). As a result, the fiscalimpacts of growth were not used as a criteria for theallocation of growth at the County level.1

• Likewise, servicing capacity was also not considered tobe a determinative factor for the distribution of growthat the County level.

There is a range of servicing options and there do notappear to be any unique or abnormal constraints toproviding servicing capacity.2 Although some moredetailed work will be required to identify the preferredoption, servicing is not used as a criteria for the County-wide distribution of growth.

• Similarly, all of the local municipalities have thepotential to plan for new growth in a manner thatprotects the environment and is consistent with thecurrent County greenlands. Any new growth areas willbe subject to stringent environmental planning andreview by the County, the Province and other agencies.

As a result, the remaining population growth has beendistributed based on patterns of market demand. The distri-bution is for continued population growth across all commu-nities in the Simcoe County Area, with a greater concentra-tion of growth within two geographic areas:

1 A summary of the fiscal analysis and its key findings isprovided in Appendix D. Full details are available in the Report onthe Findings for Review and Discussion by the Municipal FinanceSub-Committee prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. for the Simcoe

Area Growth Plan in February 2008.

2 For details, see Assessment of Water Supply andWastewater Treatment Facilities, undertaken for the County ofSimcoe in August 2007.

21

HEMSON

• The southern, rapidly urbanizing communities of theTowns of Bradford-West Gwillimbury, Innisfil and NewTecumseth, and the Barrie area; and

• The communities within a broader area that is generallyreferred to as the "Georgian Triangle Area" — theTowns of Collingwood and Wasaga Beach and theTownship of Clearview.

The result is shown on the following page, and represents areasonable community structure from a market perspective,and incorporates the views of a wide range of stakeholderswithin the context of the overall Growth Plan forecastallocation of 667,000 people by 2031.

It is worth reiterating that the distribution of populationgrowth may need to be reconsidered based on further discus-sion and input from the Province, particularly as it relates tothe issue of growth in the separated cities. The cities of Barrieand Orillia are included in this exercise solely for the pur-poses of distributing growth to the communities withinmunicipal Simcoe County.1

1 Details to the distribution of both population andemployment growth are provided in Appendix E.

22

HEMSON

Table 2Simcoe Area Growth Plan

Distribution of Population Growth, 2006 to 2031

Community 2006 Census Total

Population

2031 ProposedTotal

Population

PopulationGrowth

2006-2031

Adjala-TosorontioNew TecumsethBradford-West GwillimburyInnisfilEssaClearviewCollingwoodWasaga BeachSpringwaterOro-MedonteRamaraSevernTayTinyMidlandPenetanguishene

11,10028,80025,00032,40017,60014,60018,00015,60018,10020,8009,800

12,50010,10011,20016,9009,700

14,20049,00049,70065,00022,90026,00030,20035,00026,50028,10015,50020,20011,30013,90019,70012,300

3,10020,20024,70032,6005,300

11,40012,20019,4008,4007,3005,7007,7001,2002,7002,8002,600

Simcoe County Total 272,200 439,500 167,300

City of Barrie

City of Orillia

First Nations

133,500

31,400

1,500

185,000

41,000

1,500

51,500

9,600

-

Total Simcoe County Area 438,600 667,000 228,400

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2008.

Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. 2006 Census Total Population is the Census population adjusted upwards to include an approximately 4%Census under-coverage.

23

HEMSON

B. EMPLOYMENT IS DISTRIBUTED ACCORDINGTO PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL OBJECTIVES

The method for distributing employment growth is similar topopulation. The first step is for each community in municipalSimcoe County to maintain their 2006 share of employment.The next step is to address the issue of employment growthin the separated cities, again as determined through Provin-cial negotiations.

As with population, taking these two steps results in thedistribution of most growth, and in the case of employmentnearly all. The remainder of growth is distributed in accor-dance with the recommendations of the Employment Landsub-committee to establish major employment nodes in southSimcoe, along Highway 400 in the Towns of Bradford-WestGwillimbury and Innisfil.

1. Growth within Municipal Simcoe County IsDistributed Accordance with Market Shares

As shown in Table 1, the Provincial guidance provided onthe disaggregation of the Growth Plan Schedule 3 forecastallocates a total of 132,000 jobs to municipal Simcoe County,including the First Nations communities:

• As with population growth, employment for the FirstNations communities is held constant over the forecastperiod. This results in a total of 128,900 jobs to bedistributed within Simcoe County for 2031.

• This employment is distributed according to eachcommunity’s share of 2006 Census employment, so thateach community will have some employment growthover the period.

2. Growth in the Separated Cities Was AgainDetermined Through Provincial Negotiations

According to the Province, the 2031 employment figures forthe cities of Barrie and Orillia are identified as 88,000 and21,000, respectively. The city of Orillia employment ismaintained at 41,000. Some additional growth, however, isallocated to Barrie:

• An additional 2,000 jobs are allocated to the city ofBarrie for a total employment of 90,000 jobs in 2031;and

• This reflects Provincial Growth Plan objectives for theurban growth centres, and maintenance of the 2006balance of jobs to population in the community.

3. Remaining Growth Is Distributed Based onPreferred Employment Land Location

The allocation of 132,000 jobs to Simcoe County (includingthe First Nations communities), 21,000 jobs to the city ofOrillia and 90,000 jobs to the city of Barrie results in a total2031 employment of 243,000, or approximately 95% of thetotal growth to be allocated.

24

HEMSON

The remaining 11,000, or approximately 5% of the growth tobe allocated, is divided between two communities, the Townsof Bradford-West Gwillimbury and Innisfil:

• The allocation of growth to the two southern communi-ties reflects the recommendation of the EmploymentLand sub-committee to establish major employmentnodes along the Highway 400 corridor.

• The Employment Land sub-committee also recom-mended that flexibility be provided for all communitiesto take advantage of economic development opportuni-ties. Maintaining the 2006 share of employment foreach of the local municipalities in Simcoe County isconsistent with this recommendation.

The result is shown on the following page and reflects localand County objectives for employment growth within thecontext of the overall Provincial Growth Plan forecastallocation of 254,000 jobs in 2031.

One of the key issues, however, that has emerged with respectto the overall Growth Plan employment allocation and thedistribution of employment growth within Simcoe County isthe issue of employment land, and the challenges involved inprotecting key employment land locations for long-termeconomic development purposes:

• There are good reasons to support such an economicdevelopment objective, including the Provincialrecognition of the importance of major highway corri-dors and employment land to the competitiveness of theGGH and the benefits of taking a longer view foremployment land planning;

• In the Simcoe County Area, the most competitivelocations for employment land are along the Highway400 corridor, including locations in the Towns ofBradford-West Gwillimbury and Innisfil. The ProvincialIGAP study reached a similar conclusion.1

• However, even with virtually all of the available“unallocated” portions of employment growth allocatedto these two southern locations, it will be a challenge toimplement the County’s vision for major employmentnodes along the Highway 400 corridor.

• Notwithstanding the advantages of planning for em-ployment land in the Highway 400 corridor, or thesuitability of this location for that purpose, the newProvincial policy environment makes the justificationof new employment land very difficult. 2

It will be necessary to identify the key employment landlocations in the new County of Simcoe official plan, andmore specifically the recommended nodes in the Towns ofBradford-West Gwillimbury and Innisfil. Further discussionswith the Province and local municipalities, however, willlikely be required to identify the appropriate land useplanning response for achieving this objective.

1 The IGAP study identified a need for additionalemployment land in these two communities.

2 A summary of employment land requirements for theSimcoe County Area is provided in Appendix F.

25

HEMSON

Table 3Simcoe Area Growth Plan

Distribution of Employment Growth, 2006 to 2031

Community 2006 CensusEmployment

2031 Proposed Employment

EmploymentGrowth

2006-2031

Adjala-TosorontioNew TecumsethBradford-West GwillimburyInnisfilEssaClearviewCollingwoodWasaga BeachSpringwaterOro-MedonteRamaraSevernTayTinyMidlandPenetanguishene

1,60019,7008,0005,7007,7004,400

10,8003,1005,0004,7001,9003,9001,5001,400

12,0005,300

2,10026,30016,20013,10010,3005,800

14,4004,1006,7006,2002,5005,3002,0001,900

16,0007,000

5006,6008,2007,4002,6001,5003,6001,0001,7001,600

6001,300

500500

4,0001,800

Simcoe County Total 96,400 139,900 43,500

City of Barrie

City of Orillia

First Nations

64,300

19,700

3,100

90,000

21,000

3,100

25,700

1,300

-

Total Simcoe County Area 183,500 254,000 70,500

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2008.

Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. 2006 Census employment includes usual place of work, work at home and no usual place of workemployment. For each community within the Simcoe County Area, the "no usual place of work" employment has been redistributed in accordancewith their shares of the other two types of employment (usual place of work and work at home).

26

HEMSON

C. RECREATION-BASED HOUSING SHOULD BELIMITED TO SPECIFIC LOCATIONS

The Seasonal, Recreational, Institutional Housing sub-committee examined the issue of recreation-based housing aspart of the growth plan study process. One of the key issueswas the shifting economic and growth environment in theSimcoe County Area, which was resulting in new pressuresfor this type of development.

Most of the existing policies for seasonal or recreation-basedhousing were written in the early 1990s, when most growthoutlooks were modest. Much has changed since then,however, including accelerated growth and an increasinglyconstrained land supply in the GTAH and parts of theSimcoe County Area. As a result, policies regardingrecreation-based housing are increasingly being used by thedevelopment community as a means of obtaining additionalapprovals, in some cases for rural locations outside or abut-ting a designated settlement area.

Although some recreation-based units may not be occupiedyear round, from a land use planning perspective they havemuch of the same implications including the delivery ofservices. In response to the need for updated developmentcontrols for recreation-based housing in the current growthand land use planning context, the following policy direc-tions are recommended for inclusion in the new Countyofficial plan.

1. Some Recreation-Based Housing Should Continueto Be Permitted in Simcoe

On the matter of whether or not recreation-based housingshould continue to be permitted, it is clear that some of thistype of development should be allowed in the Simcoe CountyArea. There are many sound reasons, including:

• The important role that it plays in the economic basefor many communities within the Simcoe County Area.In 2006, there were approximately 17,000 estimatedunits throughout the Simcoe County Area.1

• Opportunities provided by the Growth Plan to accom-modate a limited amount of development outside ofdesignated settlement areas; and

• The recognition that providing opportunities for recre-ation-based housing in close proximity to the GreaterToronto Area and Hamilton urban area is an economicadvantage for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

However, given recent trends towards more permanentoccupancy of these types of units, and growing pressure fortheir approval outside of designated settlement areas, anupdated policy approach is required.

1 For clarity, the term “recreation-based housing” is used torefer to this type of housing. According to County staff, there are fewtruly seasonal units being built in Simcoe, and the term “lifestylecommunity” reflects a marketing approach as opposed to a specificbuilt form. See Appendix G for the estimate of the 2006Censusrecreation-based units.

27

HEMSON

2. Recreation-Based Housing Should Only BePermitted in Certain Locations

The need for a new policy approach to recreation-basedhousing is driven by a number of factors, including strongdemand, a diminishing distinction between recreation-basedand permanent housing and new Provincial policies that seekto restrict rural development.

• As stated in the 2006 Background Report on the matterof recreation-based housing, there is strong demand forrecreational housing in Simcoe County. Demand isbeing driven mainly by an aging population and strongeconomy, which is generating increased wealth andinterest in second homes. 1

• Given the limited supply of waterfront property,recreation-based housing is emerging in new built formsand new locations, often outside of designated settlem-ent areas around ski resorts and golf courses or in ruralareas that are able to offer a high natural aesthetic andcommunity amenities.

• The distinction between recreation-based and perma-nent housing is also diminishing. The form of housingis changing with a growing market for multi-unitdevelopment, often in the form of the intensification ofthe existing shoreline, and many units are being usedyear-round.

• There is a growing tendency for owners of recreation-based properties to use their second homes throughoutthe year. Over time, many developments originallymarketed as seasonal, or “lifestyle”, become occupiedthroughout the year.

As a result, from a land use planning perspective this type ofhousing creates much of the same impact as permanenthousing, including the provision of services such as policeand fire protection. Although many of these units may bemarketed as non-permanent, from the perspective of land useplanning and servicing they are much the same as permanentunits.

Given the new Provincial policy directions to achieve morecompact urban forms and restrict development in rural areas,it is clear that a new approach is required. Accordingly,future recreation-based development should only be permit-ted in association with identified natural recreationalattractions and where all of the following conditions are met:

• The housing is adjacent to and has good accessibility toan identified natural recreational attraction;

• The housing is not adjacent to or abutting an existingdesignated settlement area boundary;

• The housing development is of a scale consideredappropriate relative to the scale of the natural recre-ational attraction;

1 See Appendix A for references to the four BackgroundReports prepared in 2006.

28

HEMSON

• The housing development would not have any negativeimpacts on nearby agricultural activities, rural resourcesor the rural "aesthetic";

• There would be no negative impacts on the NaturalHeritage System, including hazard lands, water bodies orwater courses or cultural or archaeological resources;

• There would be no negative impacts on existing shore-line areas;

• The housing development is serviced with full munici-pal or communal services; and

• There would be no negative fiscal impacts to theCounty or local municipality with respect to the cost toprovide and maintain the necessary infrastructure.

3. Implementation Should Remain a LocalResponsibility

Given the wide range of locations, tenure types and builtforms for seasonal and recreation-based housing, it is verydifficult to put in place an area-wide policy framework forrecreation-based housing. As a result:

• A site-by-site approach is preferred, with implementa-tion remaining a local municipal responsibility withinan overall County framework, including the recom-mended conditions for approval; and

• The current County planning framework for seasonaland recreation-based housing should be largely retainedand updated with strict conditions for approval. It wasthe view of the sub-committee that the current policyframework was adequate, but needed to be updated toreflect the current growth pressures.

The sub-committee also recommended that a strategy foraffordable and institutional housing be developed as part ofthe new County official plan. These recommendations wereapproved by the Growth Process Steering Committee, withthe request that the potential financial implications of anypolicies for affordable housing be carefully considered.

D. DEVELOPMENT OF HEALTHY COMMUNITIESSHOULD BE A PRIORITY

The Health and Lifestyles sub-committee addressed the issueof the need for new policies to promote healthy communities,accessible health care and community services. Two mainrecommendations were made:

• Local municipalities need to take actions to improve thebuilt environment by promoting complete communitydevelopment, supporting transit development andreducing urban sprawl; and

29

HEMSON

• The County and other agencies, such as the Conserva-tion Authorities, need to take actions to improve thedelivery of County-wide services, including access tohealth care, active transportation systems as well as theprotection of greenspace.1

Both sets of recommendations should be incorporated in thenew official plan. Of the two, however, it is the recom-mended local municipal initiatives that have the mostsignificant planning implications as they relate to the builtenvironment and the form of development. The major toolat the County level to influence the form of the builtenvironment is density and intensification targets.

In order to achieve the built form objectives associated withbuilding healthy communities, it is recommended that theGrowth Plan density and intensification targets be applied tothe older and more urban communities in Simcoe County topromote a more compact urban form. The other smaller andmore rural settlement areas in Simcoe County should retaintheir small-town character.

1. Growth Plan Density and Intensification TargetsShould Be Applied to the Larger and Older UrbanAreas in Simcoe

As noted earlier, under the Provincial Growth Plan, specificintensification and density targets are to be achieved:

• A minimum 40% of all residential units must be accom-modated within the built-up area after 2015; and

• New greenfield development must achieve a density of50 residents and jobs combined per ha.

Accordingly, in order to implement the recommendations ofthe Health and Lifestyles sub-committee to improve the builtenvironment through more compact urban form, the GrowthPlan density and intensification targets should be applied tothe larger settlement areas and older and more urban commu-nities. This includes:

• The Town of New Tecumseth; • The Town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury; • The Town of Innisfil;• The Town of Collingwood;• The Town of Penetanguishene; and • The Town of Midland.2

1 For detail, see a report on the impacts of built form on thehealth of the population, prepared by the Simcoe Muskoka DistrictHealth Unit and other materials provided by the North SimcoeMuskoka Local Health Integration Network. Full references areprovided in Appendix A.

2 The Town of Wasaga Beach was not included because itis a relatively new community as compared to a community such asthe Town of Collingwood. It lacks a distinct central core and as aresult is likely to continue to develop with a less urban character overtime.

30

HEMSON

For communities within Simcoe County, these targetsrepresent a much more compact urban form than is currentlybeing built. Analysis undertaken by Hemson Consulting Ltdas part of the study process indicates that the current densityof new residential communities is a maximum of 36 jobs andresidents per ha.1

2. Small-Town Character of the Rural LocationsShould Be Maintained

Simcoe County has several municipalities where the majorityof population is contained in urban communities, where theurban-type levels of density and intensification anticipated bythe Growth Plan may be warranted. There are other munici-palities, however, that are rural in nature where this may notbe appropriate:

• There are several rural municipalities in Simcoe Countywhere denser, urban-type development would bephysically unsuitable and inconsistent with thesmall-town character of these locations.

• One of the key themes arising out of the public meet-ings and the forum for organized interests was the needfor the County to maintain the character and ruralaesthetic of small towns.

• Seeking to accommodate very dense, urban-type formsin the smaller rural communities may also undermineother Growth Plan objectives for the Simcoe CountyArea by reducing the amount of this type of developm-ent that would occur in other locations, including theBarrie urban growth centre.

• Promoting transit use, for example, is an objective thatis better achieved in the larger, more urban settlementareas than in small towns. The types of built forms thatbest support transit — mainly apartments and majoroffice uses — should be concentrated in locations wherethis type of development may already exist, or wheretransit infrastructure is already in place.

3. The Result Will Be Slightly Lower Aggregate Density and Intensification Targets

The recommended approach to setting the density andintensification targets is therefore as follows:

• The Growth Plan density target of 50 residents and jobscombined per ha should be applied to the six larger andolder urban areas in Simcoe County: the Town of NewTecumseth; the Town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury;the Town of Innisfil; the Town of Collingwood; theTown of Penetanguishene; and the Town of Midland;and

• The Growth Plan intensification target of 40% of newresidential units after 2015 should also be applied tothese six larger and urban areas.

1 The current Growth Plan density in new residentialcommunities in Simcoe County is estimated to be only 36 residentsand jobs per ha. Details of this estimate are provided in Appendix H.Including the land-extensive employment areas would reduce theoverall density to about 30 residents and jobs combined per ha, whichis significantly below the Provincial target.

31

HEMSON

The remaining communities in Simcoe County would besubject to lower targets, consistent with the currentlyobserved pattern of development.

As a result of this approach, the overall County-wide densityand intensification targets will be somewhat lower than theProvincially-mandated 50 residents and jobs combined per haand 40% intensification. This is consistent with Growth Planpolicies that contemplate the setting of alternative targets insuch circumstances:

• Section 2.2.3.4 indicates that the Minister may reviewand permit an alternative intensification target for anupper-tier municipality in the Outer Ring; and

• Section 2.2.7.5 indicates that the Minister may reviewand permit an alternative density target for an upper-tier municipality in the Outer Ring.

Accordingly, the following targets are recommended for thenew County of Simcoe official plan:

• An aggregate density target of approximately 40 resi-dents and jobs combined per ha is considered a reason-able goal for new greenfield development; and

• An aggregate target of approximately 30% intensifica-tion within existing built-up areas is also considered areasonable goal for municipal Simcoe County.

These are considered reasonable goals for the new Countyofficial plan, recognizing that specific local density andintensification targets will need to be confirmed through thelocal municipal conformity exercises. A summary of theestimates of the aggregate County-wide density and intensifi-cation targets is provided in Appendix I. The next chapter turns to a discussion of this issue as well asother implementation issues such as the role that the County,the local municipalities and the Province will need to play inensuring that the Provincial and County visions for thefuture are achieved.

32

HEMSON

IV GROWTH PLAN NOW NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNCIL ANDINCORPORATED INTO A NEW OFFICIAL PLAN

In order to move the growth management process forward,the County of Simcoe Council will need to approve theSimcoe Area Growth Plan which will be implementedthrough the new County official plan. Local municipalitieswill need to conform to the County’s new plan, particularlyin the form of planning to achieve the population andemployment forecasts and the density and intensificationtargets.

Consistent with the current role of County planning, thedetailed planning associated with the growth forecasts anddensity and intensification targets should remain a localmunicipal responsibility within an overall County policyframework. The key issues that will need to be addressed are:the location and amount of employment land; policies forrecreation-based housing and other policies regarding thedevelopment of healthy communities.

Finally, it is also clear, based on the wide range of views aboutthe future of Simcoe County, that the Province will need tobe a partner in implementation. It is the expectation of theCounty and its partners that the Province will support anddefend the Simcoe Area Growth Plan, should challenges tothe new County official plan be made.

A. GROWTH PLAN WILL BE IMPLEMENTEDTHROUGH THE NEW OFFICIAL PLAN

It is worth reiterating that the Simcoe Area Growth Plan isnot a detailed land use plan. It is a strategic-level documentthat will provide guidance to the new official plan, alongwith the Transportation Master Plan and Natural HeritageSystem Update. The Simcoe Area Growth Plan will beimplemented through the new County official plan andsubsequent local conformity exercises.

1. Council Needs to Approve This Document AsInput to the New Official Plan

In order to implement the Simcoe Area Growth Plan,County Council needs to approve this document as afoundation study for the new official plan, which will becirculated for public review and comment, including reviewby the local municipalities and the Province. The newCounty official plan requires approval by the Province beforeit is legally effective.

33

HEMSON

2. New Official Plan Will Be the Main Tool forImplementation

Following this review, changes will be made as appropriate,and the document will be forwarded to County Council forapproval. Following County Council approval, the SimcoeArea Growth Plan can be implemented through the newCounty official plan, including population and employmentforecasts, density and intensification targets and otherpolicies to guide growth.

3. Local Municipalities Need to CommenceConformity Exercises

Following the adoption of the Simcoe Area Growth Plan,local municipalities should commence their official planconformity exercises. Local municipal plans, however, cannotbe adopted or approved until the County’s new official planis adopted and approved by the Province. Local municipalplans will need to conform to the key growth managementprinciples of the new official plan, specifically:

• The population and employment forecasts; and

• The density and intensification targets.

Many municipalities have already commenced local officialplan processes, including growth management studies andother studies. It is anticipated that the County will work withlocal municipalities to develop the targets in a manner thatensures the overall Growth Plan objective to promote com-pact urban forms is achieved.

B. DETAILED PLANNING WILL BE A LOCALMUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY

Within the overall County official plan framework, localmunicipalities will be responsible for detailed planning. Thisincludes planning for employment land, policies forrecreation-based housing and other policies to promotehealthy community development.

1. Towns of Bradford and Innisfil ShouldRecommend Employment Nodes

In order to implement the recommendation that employmentnodes be established in the Highway 400 corridor, moredetailed land use planning will need to undertaken:

• The Towns of Bradford-West Gwillimbury and Innisfilshould recommend the amount and preferred locationin the identified nodes as part of their local official planconformity exercise; and

• The extent and configuration of the employment areasshould be determined by County planning staff inconsultation with local municipalities.

Discussion with the Province may be required to implementthe official plan amendments for the employment nodes inthe new local and County official plans. Options may includeplanning for a longer time frame, “special policy” areas in theHighway 400 corridor or other methods to ensure the long-term protection for key employment land locations.

34

HEMSON

2. Policies for Recreation-Based Housing Will Needto Be Developed

The local municipalities will also be responsible for thespecific implementation of County policies for recreation-based housing. Local municipalities will need to implementdetailed plans for this type of development, including:

• The definition of recreation-based housing for localplanning purposes;

• Criteria for approval within the overall County policyframework;

• Relation to density and intensification targets; and

• Others, as required.

3. Priorities for Healthy Communities Will Need toBe Reflected in Local Plans

In addition to the density and intensification targets, localmunicipalities will need to conform to other directions forthe development of healthy communities that are recom-mended for inclusion in the new official plan, includinginitiatives related to complete community development,increased density, mixed-used development and morewalkable comminutes.1

C. PROVINCE NEEDS TO BE A PARTNER INIMPLEMENTATION

As the County and its partners proceed with implementingthis vision for the future, it is clear that assistance from theProvince will be required. Provincial support will be requiredto defend the Simcoe Area Growth Plan and flexibility maybe required as local official plans are bought into conformity.Provincial investment in community infrastructure will alsobe required, including Provincial investment in health andsocial service facilities.

1. Provincial Policies May Need to be Defended

In recent years, some local municipalities have taken steps tocommence planning for growth beyond current plannedcommitments. After the Simcoe Area Growth Plan isimplemented through the new County official plan, however,many of these plans may not be able to proceed.

Given that the growth forecast allocated to the SimcoeCounty Area by the Province is lower than the expectationsof the development community, and that no new landdesignations are being recommended, Provincial assistancemay be required to address excess urban designations anddevelopment concepts. Such assistance will need to includeparticipation at future Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)hearings.

1 The full list of recommendations, as amended by theGrowth Process Steering Committee, is available on the County’sgrowth plan website: www.growth.simcoe.ca.

35

HEMSON

2. Flexibility May be Required For Local OfficialPlan Conformity Exercises

The Simcoe County Area is made up of a wide range anddiversity of settlement areas. As local municipalities bringtheir plans into conformity with the new County officialplan, there may be some cases where flexibility is required forimplementation.

For example, there may be some communities where thedensity and intensification targets are not achievable from anengineering or environmental perspective, or would significa-ntly impair tourism-related development. In these cases, theProvince may need to provide flexibility in the form ofexemptions or modifications to the plan.

3. Provincial Investment in Infrastructure is Key toDelivering the Vision

Although much of the discussion throughout the growth planstudy process focussed on the issue of “not enough”, theSimcoe County Area will still accommodate significantgrowth through the forecast period. It will be important toensure that Provincial investment in infrastructure keepspace with the mandated growth, particularly:

• Provincially funded facilities, such as hospitals, otherhealth care facilities and others; and

• Provincial roads, which according to the TransportationMaster Plan will require significant upgrades.

Other investments in infrastructure will be required toimprove the appeal of high density living, including transit,streetscapes, cultural amenities and the arts. The Provinceneeds to assist the County and local municipalities inensuring that these amenities are provided.

The Simcoe County Area is expected to accommodatesignificant growth over the next 25 years. To plan for thatgrowth in a manner that best serves the long-term interestsof the community, the County of Simcoe has prepared agrowth management strategy that is called the Simcoe AreaGrowth Plan.

The Simcoe Area Growth Plan was prepared in the contextof new Provincial polices that seek to promote more compactand efficient communities and put greater emphasis on theintensification of existing urban areas over continuousexpansion into greenfield areas.

In the context of these objectives, the Simcoe Area GrowthPlan defines the location and character of new communitydevelopment. It was prepared through consultation with awide range of decision-makers and interested stakeholdersincluding the public, organized interest groups and thedevelopment community.

36

HEMSON

It is indeed a significant achievement to have developed acommon vision for the Simcoe County Area within such achallenging decision-making environment. It would not havebeen possible without the commitment of the GrowthManagement Steering Committee, the growth process sub-committees, the Warden, senior management, and membersof the County of Simcoe planning staff and the local munici-palities.

HEMSON

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. Bibliography of Growth Management Studies

B. List of Committee Members

C. Provincial Letter on Growth Plan Forecasts for Barrie and Orillia and Simcoe County

D. Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis

E. Details on the Distribution of Population and Employment Growth

F. Estimate of Long-Range Employment Land Requirements

G. Estimate of Recreation-based Housing Units

H. Estimate of Growth Plan Density in New Residential Communities

I. Estimate of County-wide Density and Intensification Targets

37

HEMSON

APPENDIX A

Bibliography of Growth Management Studies

HEMSON

SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ainsley & Associates Limited. The County of SimcoeGrowth Management Study: Assessment of Water Supplyand Wastewater Treatment Facilities. August 2007.

Health & Lifestyles Sub-Committee. North SimcoeMuskoka LHIN Strategic Directions and Goals.

Hemson Consulting Ltd. Simcoe County Growth PlanSummary of Community Consultation October andNovember 2007.

Hemson Consulting Ltd. Simcoe Area Growth Plan:Report on the Findings for Review and Discussion by theMunicipal Finance Sub-Committee. February 2008.

Hemson Consulting Ltd. Population, Households &Employment Forecasts Update: Final Report. May 2004.

Hemson Consulting Ltd. Directions Report: Developing aGrowth Management Strategy for the Simcoe County Area:Working Document for Review by the Growth ManagementSteering Committee. September 2007.

Hemson Consulting Ltd. County of Simcoe Sub-Committee Meetings Discussion Papers. June 2006:

Growth Management Strategy: Provincial PoliciesSubcommittee. Discussion Paper for InitialSubcommittee Meeting. June 1, 2006.

Growth Management Strategy: Housing ChoicesSubcommittee. Discussion Paper for InitialSubcommittee Meeting. June 1, 2006.

Growth Management Strategy: Municipal ServicesSubcommittee. Discussion Paper for InitialSubcommittee Meeting. June 8, 2006.

Growth Management Strategy: Hard ServicesSubcommittee. Preliminary Findings of the HardServices Subcommittee: Delivery of Water &Wastewater Services. August 18, 2006.

SHS Inc. Housing Needs Assessment and Recommendationson Policies and Programs: Draft: Housing Needs Assessment(Part 1). November 15, 2006.

2

HEMSON

The work and various reports prepared as part of theProvincial Intergovernmental Action Plan (IGAP) StudyProcess:

Dillon Consulting. Intergovernmental Action Plan forSimcoe, Barrie and Orillia: Existing CapacitiesAssessment SWOT Analysis. July 2006.

Dillon Consulting. Intergovernmental Action Plan forSimcoe, Barrie and Orillia: Growth PotentialsAssessment Report. August 2006.

Dillon Consulting. Intergovernmental Action Plan forSimcoe, Barrie and Orillia: Existing CapacitiesAssessment Demographic, Housing and EmploymentTrends in Barrie, Orillia and Simcoe County. June2006.

Dillon Consulting. Intergovernmental Action Plan forSimcoe, Barrie and Orillia: Implementation AssessmentReport. August 2006.

Greenland International Consulting Ltd.Assimilative Capacity Studies: CANWET ModelingProject Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga River Basins:Final Report. 22 February 2006 updated 26 April2006.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority andNottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.Assimilative Capacity Studies for the Lake SimcoeWatershed and Nottawasaga River: ExecutiveSummary. July 2006.

SNC Lavalin. Nottawassaga Bay Mixing Zone Model.April 2006.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. Benthic Macro-invertebrateSampling and Analysis of Lake Simcoe: Final Report .March 2006.

The Louis Berger Group Inc. Pollutant Target LoadStudy: Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga RiverWatersheds. June 2006.

W. F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd.and Gartner Lee Limited. Lake Simcoe Hydrodynamicand Water Quality Model. May 2006.

Williams, M. and Wright, M. The Impact of the BuiltEnvironment on the Health of the Population: A Review ofthe Review Literature. Simcoe Muskoka District HealthUnit, 2007.

HEMSON

APPENDIX B

List of Committee Members

HEMSON

SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

The preparation of the Simcoe Area Growth Plan wasdirected by a committee of elected officials called theGrowth Process Steering Committee. The GrowthProcess Steering Committee also established five growthprocess sub-committees, made up of staff and electedofficials, to address the key growth management issues.The members of these committees is shown below.

The terms of reference for the Growth Process SteeringCommittee and sub-committees are shown following thelist of committee members.

Members of The Growth Process SteeringCommittee

Warden Tony Guergis

Councillor Doug Little

Councillor Peggy Breckenridge

Councillor Sandra Cooper

Councillor Brian Jackson

Councillor Harry Hughes

Councillor Mike MacEachern

Councillor Cal Patterson

Past Warden Dennis Roughley

Councillor Alicia Savage

Mayor Ron Stevens, City of Orillia

Mayor Dave Aspden and/or designate, City of Barrie

Councillor Barry Ward, City of Barrie

2

HEMSON

Members of the Five Growth Process Sub-committees

1. The Health and Lifestyles Sub-committee

Elected Officials:

Rick Archdekin, Councillor, Town of WasagaBeachGeorge Cornell, Councillor, Township of TinyJim Downer, Councillor, County of SimcoeAnita Dubeau, Councillor, County of SimcoeDennis Roughley, Councillor, County of SimcoeTony Guergis, Warden, County of Simcoe

Staff:

Shawn Binns, Manager of Recreation andCommunity Services, Township of Oro-MedontePeter Dunbar, Director of Leisure Services, Town ofCollingwoodJane Sinclair, General Manager, Health andCultural Services, County of SimcoeCarol Trainor, Clerk–Deputy Treasurer, Townshipof EssaDr. Charles Gardner, Medical Officer of Health,Simcoe – Muskoka District Health Unit Jean Trimnell, Chief Executive Officer, NorthSimcoe Local Health Integration Network (LHIN)

2. Municipal Finance Sub-committee

Elected Officials:

Terry Allison, Councillor, Township ofOro-MedonteJohn Crispo, Councillor, Township of ClearviewDoug Leroux, Councillor, County of SimcoePhil Sled, Councillor, County of SimcoeStan Wells, Councillor, Town of Wasaga BeachTony Guergis, Warden, County of Simcoe

Staff:

Jeffrey Brydges, Deputy Treasurer, Township ofClearviewTom Evans, General Manager, Finance andAdministration, County of SimcoeSue Gignac, Treasurer, Town of MidlandMarjory Leonard, Director of Treasury Services,Town of Collingwood

3

HEMSON

3. Community Structure Sub-committee

Elected Officials:

Sandy Agnew, Councillor, Township ofOro-MedonteBasil Clarke, Councillor, County of SimcoeDel Crake, Councillor, Town of Bradford WestGwillimburyThom Paterson, Councillor, Township of ClearviewCal Patterson, Councillor, County of SimcoeTony Guergis, Warden, County of Simcoe

Staff:

Mark Aitken, Chief Administrative Officer, Countyof SimcoeGerry Caterer, Director of Planning, Township ofAdjala-TosorontioGeoff McKnight, Director of Planning, Town ofBradford West GwillimburyDavid Parks, Director of Planning andDevelopment, Township of Severn

4. Employment Land Sub-committee

Elected Officials:

Joe Fecht, Councillor, City of OrilliaTony Hope, Councillor, County of SimcoeJess Prothero, Councillor, Town of New TecumsethGord Wauchope, Councillor, County of SimcoeDoug White, Councillor, County of SimcoeTony Guergis, Warden, County of Simcoe

Staff:

Andrew Fyfe, Director of Planning, Township ofSpringwaterBryan MacKell, Planner, Town of MidlandGayla McDonald, Clerk/Manager ofAdministration, Town of New TecumsethRick Newlove, General Manager, CorporateServices, County of Simcoe

4

HEMSON

5. Seasonal, Recreational, Institutional HousingSub-committee

Elected Officials:

Kim Anderson, Councillor, Township ofSpringwaterNina Bifolchi, Councillor, Town of Wasaga BeachJudith Cox, Councillor, County of SimcoeAnne Murphy, Councillor, Town ofPenetanguisheneNigel Warren, Councillor, Township of TinyTony Guergis, Warden, County of Simcoe

Staff:

Richard Bates, Chief Administrative Officer,Township of RamaraIan Bender, Director of Planning, County of SimcoeRobert Browne, Manager, Parks and Recreation,Town of InnisfilRay Kelso, Manager of Planning and Development,Town of Wasaga Beach

These five sub-committees met on numerous occasionsthrough the fall of 2007 and early 2008, and submittedrecommendations to the Growth Process SteeringCommittee in March 2008.

With some minor changes and amendments, therecommendations were approved as a basis for the draftSimcoe Area Growth Plan. The specific terms ofreference are provided on the following pages.

CO

UN

TY

OF

SIM

CO

E G

RO

WT

H P

RO

CE

SS S

TE

ER

ING

CO

MM

ITT

EE

T

ER

MS

OF

RE

FER

EN

CE

A

ppro

ved

by C

ount

y C

ounc

il M

arch

27,

200

7

Purp

ose

/ Obj

ectiv

es

To o

vers

ee th

e G

row

th M

anag

emen

t Pro

cess

, as o

utlin

ed b

y th

e Pr

oces

s Out

line

and

the

pend

ing

Gro

wth

Man

agem

ent D

irect

ions

Rep

ort.

Thi

s inc

lude

s the

strik

ing

of a

ppro

pria

te w

orki

ng g

roup

s or

sub-

com

mitt

ees,

and

prov

idin

g ov

eral

l gui

danc

e to

the

proc

ess o

f dev

elop

ing

Gro

wth

M

anag

emen

t pla

ns a

nd p

olic

ies (

whi

ch w

ill b

ecom

e pa

rt of

the

Cou

nty

Off

icia

l Pla

n) to

gui

de

grow

th fo

r the

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

area

. R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s Th

e re

spon

sibi

litie

s of t

he O

vers

ight

Com

mitt

ee sh

all b

e to

; 1.

G

uide

the

Gro

wth

Man

agem

ent P

roce

ss

2.

Prov

ide

reco

mm

enda

tions

to C

ounc

il 3.

St

rike

appr

opria

te su

b-co

mm

ittee

s and

wor

ksho

ps to

ass

ist i

n th

e pr

oces

s, in

clud

ing

a Te

chni

cal C

omm

ittee

con

sist

ing

of st

aff f

rom

the

Cou

nty,

loca

l mun

icip

aliti

es, a

nd th

e C

ities

of

Bar

rie a

nd O

rillia

to p

rovi

de re

sear

ch a

nd te

chni

cal s

uppo

rt to

the

Ove

rsig

ht C

omm

ittee

4.

Li

ase

with

var

ious

par

tner

s in

the

proc

ess t

o fa

cilit

ate

incl

usiv

enes

s and

com

mun

icat

ion

5.

Mai

ntai

n tim

elin

es a

nd d

eliv

erab

les t

hrou

ghou

t the

pro

cess

C

ompo

sitio

n Th

e C

omm

ittee

shal

l be

com

pris

ed o

f 9 m

embe

rs o

f Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

(rep

rese

ntat

ion

to b

e de

term

ined

by

the

Cor

pora

te S

ervi

ces C

omm

ittee

), 2

repr

esen

tativ

es fr

om th

e C

ity o

f Bar

rie a

nd a

re

pres

enta

tive

of th

e C

ity o

f Oril

lia, a

nd th

e W

arde

n as

an

ex-o

ffic

io m

embe

r.

Cha

ir/V

ice

Cha

ir

The

Com

mitt

ee sh

all a

t its

firs

t mee

ting

sele

ct o

ne o

f its

mem

bers

to b

e C

hair

and

one

mem

ber t

o be

Vic

e-C

hair.

R

emun

erat

ion

The

Stee

ring

Com

mitt

ee m

embe

rs sh

all b

e co

mpe

nsat

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

Cou

nty

Polic

y.

Rep

ortin

g Th

e St

eerin

g C

omm

ittee

shal

l rep

ort t

o C

ount

y C

ounc

il th

roug

h th

e C

orpo

rate

Ser

vice

s C

omm

ittee

. M

eetin

g Sc

hedu

le

Mee

tings

will

be

calle

d by

the

Cha

ir as

requ

ired

thro

ugho

ut th

e Pr

oces

s to

addr

ess m

atte

rs a

s the

y ar

ise.

CO

UN

TY

OF

SIM

CO

E

TE

RM

S O

F R

EFE

RE

NC

E

SUB

-CO

MM

ITT

EE

S FO

R T

HE

GR

OW

TH

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

PR

OC

ESS

Purp

ose/

Obj

ectiv

es

To m

ake

reco

mm

enda

tions

to th

e C

ount

y of

Sim

coe

Gro

wth

Pro

cess

Ste

erin

g C

omm

ittee

w

ith re

spec

t to

spec

ific

item

s rel

ated

to th

e G

row

th M

anag

emen

t Pro

cess

. R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s Th

e fo

llow

ing

sub-

com

mitt

ees a

re e

stab

lishe

d an

d th

e re

spon

sibi

litie

s for

eac

h ar

e as

fo

llow

s;

1.

The

Hea

lth a

nd L

ifest

yles

sub-

com

mitt

ee sh

all r

evie

w a

nd su

bmit

reco

mm

enda

tions

th

at su

ppor

t the

cre

atio

n of

, and

iden

tify

futu

re st

rate

gies

for h

ealth

y co

mm

uniti

es,

acce

ssib

le h

ealth

car

e an

d co

mm

unity

serv

ices

. 2.

Th

e M

unic

ipal

Fin

ance

sub-

com

mitt

ee w

ill d

eter

min

e w

heth

er o

r not

gro

wth

is

requ

ired

to im

prov

e th

e co

mm

unity

’s fi

nanc

ial p

ositi

on, o

r pro

vide

s oth

er b

enef

its

such

as a

gre

ater

leve

l of c

omm

unity

, eco

nom

ic o

ppor

tuni

ty o

r oth

ers.

3.

The

Com

mun

ity S

truct

ure

sub-

com

mitt

ee sh

all r

ecom

men

d a

dist

ribut

ion

of th

e Pr

ovin

cial

Gro

wth

Pla

n po

pula

tion

and

empl

oym

ent f

orec

asts

to th

e lo

wer

-tier

m

unic

ipal

ities

and

the

dens

ity a

nd in

tens

ifica

tion

targ

ets f

or fu

ture

dev

elop

men

t. 4.

Th

e Em

ploy

men

t Lan

d su

b-co

mm

ittee

will

reco

mm

end

the

amou

nt a

nd p

refe

rred

lo

catio

n of

em

ploy

men

t lan

d in

the

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

area

, inc

ludi

ng a

con

side

ratio

n of

to

uris

m-r

elat

ed a

ctiv

ities

. 5.

Th

e Se

ason

al, R

ecre

atio

nal,

Inst

itutio

nal H

ousi

ng su

b-co

mm

ittee

will

iden

tify

the

role

that

life

styl

e an

d re

crea

tion-

base

d ho

usin

g w

ill p

lay

in a

ccom

mod

atin

g de

man

d fo

r hou

sing

and

reco

mm

end

polic

ies f

or fu

ture

dev

elop

men

t. C

ompo

sitio

n Ea

ch su

b-co

mm

ittee

shal

l be

com

pose

d of

the

War

den

of S

imco

e C

ount

y, a

tota

l of f

ive

elec

ted

offic

ial m

embe

rs o

f eith

er th

e C

ount

y of

Sim

coe,

the

Citi

es o

f Bar

rie a

nd O

rillia

or

the

mem

ber m

unic

ipal

ities

and

a m

axim

um o

f fou

r sta

ff m

embe

rs. (

Max

imum

of 1

0 m

embe

rs)

In a

dditi

on, e

xter

nal a

ppoi

ntee

s to

sub-

com

mitt

ees m

ay b

e m

ade

as d

eem

ed n

eces

sary

. C

hair

/Vic

e C

hair

Th

e C

omm

ittee

shal

l at i

ts fi

rst m

eetin

g in

eac

h ye

ar e

lect

one

of i

ts m

embe

rs to

be

Cha

ir an

d on

e m

embe

r to

be V

ice-

Cha

ir.

Rem

uner

atio

n M

embe

rs sh

all b

e co

mpe

nsat

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

Cou

nty

Polic

y.

Rep

ortin

g Ea

ch su

b-co

mm

ittee

shal

l rep

ort t

o th

e G

row

th P

roce

ss S

teer

ing

Com

mitt

ee, w

hich

re

ports

to th

e C

orpo

rate

Ser

vice

s Com

mitt

ee.

Mee

ting

sche

dule

Ea

ch su

b-co

mm

ittee

will

mee

t at t

he c

all o

f the

Cha

ir w

ith th

e fr

eque

ncy

to b

e es

tabl

ishe

d by

the

sub-

com

mitt

ee.

Aug

ust 2

8, 2

007

HEMSON

APPENDIX C

Provincial Letter on Growth Plan Forecasts for Barrie and Orillia and Simcoe County

HEMSON

APPENDIX D

Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis

SIM

CO

E A

RE

ASI

MC

OE

AR

EA

GR

OW

TH

PL

AN

GR

OW

TH

PL

AN

Rh

Fidi

fR

hFi

dif

Rep

ort

on t

he F

indi

ngs

for

Rep

ort

on t

he F

indi

ngs

for

Rev

iew

and

Dis

cuss

ion

by t

heR

evie

w a

nd D

iscu

ssio

n by

the

Mun

icip

al F

inan

ce S

ubM

unic

ipal

Fin

ance

Sub

--Com

mit

tee

Com

mit

tee

HE

MSO

NC

o n

s u

l t i

n g

L t

d.

Febr

uary

200

8

HE

MSO

N

TAB

LE O

F C

ON

TEN

TS

Page

IIN

TRO

DU

CTI

ON

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

..1

A.

THE

SUB

-CO

MM

ITTE

ES O

F TH

E SI

MC

OE

CO

UN

TYG

RO

WTH

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

PRO

CES

S..

....

....

....

....

....

....

..2

B.

CO

MPO

SITI

ON

OF

THE

MU

NIC

IPA

L FI

NA

NC

E SU

B-C

OM

MIT

TEE

....

.3

C.

WO

RK

PLA

N O

F TH

E M

UN

ICIP

AL

FIN

AN

CE

SUB

-CO

MM

ITTE

E..

....

..3

D.

FIN

DIN

GS

OF

THE

MU

NIC

IPA

L FI

NA

NC

E SU

B-C

OM

MIT

TEE

....

....

.4

IIFI

SCA

L ST

ATE

OF

THE

CO

UN

TY O

F SI

MC

OE

....

....

....

....

....

....

.6

A.

BA

SIC

MU

NIC

IPA

L FI

NA

NC

E TE

RM

INO

LOG

Y..

....

....

....

....

...

6B

.A

SSES

SMEN

T A

ND

PR

OPE

RTY

TA

XA

TIO

N IN

SIM

CO

E C

OU

NTY

....

..7

III

THE

AN

ALY

SED

GR

OW

TH S

CEN

AR

IOS

AR

E C

ON

SIST

ENT

WIT

HTH

E TY

PE O

F G

RO

WTH

AN

TIC

IPA

TED

IN

SIM

CO

E C

OU

NTY

....

....

...

17

A.

FOU

R R

ESID

ENTI

AL

GR

OW

TH S

CEN

AR

IOS

OF

VA

RY

ING

DEN

SITI

ES H

AV

E B

EEN

EXA

MIN

ED..

....

....

....

....

....

....

..17

B.

TWO

TY

PES

OF

NO

N-R

ESID

ENTI

AL

GR

OW

TH A

ND

VA

RY

ING

DEN

SITI

ES H

AV

E B

EEN

EXA

MIN

ED..

....

....

....

....

....

....

..19

IVFI

SCA

L IM

PAC

T A

NA

LYSI

S A

PPR

OA

CH

AN

D M

ETH

OD

OLO

GY

....

....

.21

A.

MO

DIF

IED

AV

ERA

GE

CO

ST A

PPR

OA

CH

IS A

PPR

OPR

IATE

FO

RTH

E FI

SCA

L IM

PAC

T O

F D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

....

....

....

....

....

....

21B

.C

OST

/REV

ENU

E A

LLO

CA

TIO

N M

ETH

OD

S..

....

....

....

....

....

23C

.R

EVEN

UES

WIL

L LA

RG

ELY

BE

DER

IVED

FRO

M P

RO

PER

TY T

AX

ATI

ON

.25

D.

TAX

RA

TE A

ND

TA

XES

PA

YA

BLE

IMPA

CT

....

....

....

....

....

...

27E.

OV

ERV

IEW

OF

THE

RES

IDEN

TIA

L SC

ENA

RIO

RES

ULT

S..

....

....

...

29F.

OV

ERV

IEW

OF

THE

NO

N-R

ESID

ENTI

AL

SCEN

AR

IO R

ESU

LTS

....

....

40

VFI

SCA

L IM

PAC

T A

NA

LYSI

S RE

SULT

S &

KEY

FIN

DIN

GS

....

....

....

....

49

A.

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T C

HA

RG

ES: D

OES

GR

OW

TH P

AY

FO

R G

RO

WTH

?..

..50

B.

RES

IDEN

TIA

L D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

FISC

AL

IMPA

CTS

....

....

....

....

..51

C.

NO

N-R

ESID

ENTI

AL

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T FI

SCA

L IM

PAC

TS..

....

....

....

53D

.D

ISC

USS

ION

OF

FIN

DIN

GS

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

..55

E.C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

...

60

HE

MSO

N

TEC

HN

ICA

L A

PPEN

DIC

ES (U

nder

Sep

arat

e C

over

)

A.

Fisc

al Im

pact

Ana

lysi

s A

ssum

ptio

ns

B.

Res

iden

tial D

evel

opm

ent S

cena

rios

C.

Non

-Res

iden

tial D

evel

opm

ent S

cena

rios

HE

MSO

N

VFI

SCA

L IM

PAC

T A

NA

LYSI

S R

ESU

LTS

& K

EY F

IND

ING

S

Bef

ore

disc

ussin

g th

e re

sult

s, it

war

rant

s res

tati

ng th

at th

ese

resu

lts s

houl

d be

con

side

red

prim

arily

for c

ompa

rati

ve in

form

atio

n ra

ther

than

as a

ccur

ate

pred

icti

ons o

f wha

t will

occu

r in

the

futu

re. T

he m

ain

obje

ctiv

e of

the

fisca

l ana

lysis

und

erta

ken

in th

is st

udy

is t

he e

xam

inat

ion

of t

he c

ompa

rati

ve fi

scal

impa

ct o

f alt

erna

tive

gro

wth

sce

nari

os a

sco

mpa

red

to a

det

aile

d lo

ng-t

erm

fisc

al im

pact

ana

lysi

s of

a m

unic

ipal

ity t

hat

wou

ldco

nsid

er b

oth

grow

th- a

nd n

on-g

row

th-r

elat

ed im

pact

s.

Thi

s ana

lysi

s has

hel

d co

nsta

nt, f

or c

ompa

rati

ve a

naly

sis p

urpo

ses,

a nu

mbe

r of v

aria

bles

that

are

like

ly to

cha

nge

over

tim

e, fo

r exa

mpl

e:

•A

ll va

lues

(ex

pend

iture

s, r

even

ues

and

asse

ssm

ent

valu

es)

are

held

con

stan

t in

2006

$ w

ith

no a

djus

tmen

t fo

r in

flati

on. I

nfla

tion

will

occ

ur a

nd r

esul

t in

a fi

scal

impa

ct t

o th

e m

unic

ipal

itie

s bu

t th

is i

mpa

ct w

ill o

ccur

in

any

even

t. I

n a

com

para

tive

ana

lysi

s, no

t adj

usti

ng fo

r inf

lati

on a

llow

s for

an

equi

tabl

e ev

alua

tion

of th

e re

sult

s.

•Ex

isti

ng s

ervi

ce d

eliv

ery

resp

onsi

bilit

y an

d se

rvic

e le

vels

are

mai

ntai

ned.

The

serv

ice l

evel

s inc

orpo

rate

d in

to th

e ana

lysis

are

effe

ctiv

ely

base

d on

thos

e th

at fo

rmth

e bas

is o

f eac

h pa

rtic

ular

mun

icip

alit

y’s D

evel

opm

ent C

harg

es B

ackg

roun

d St

udy

and

curr

ent s

ervi

ce d

eliv

ery

prac

tices

. The

se se

rvic

e le

vels

are

con

sist

ent w

ith

the

hist

oric

al se

rvic

e le

vels

and

the

anal

ysis

is n

ot b

ased

on

sign

ifica

nt c

hang

es. O

ver

tim

e, a

par

ticu

lar

mun

icip

alit

y m

ay b

e re

quir

ed t

o pr

ovid

e a

diffe

rent

mix

of

serv

ices

tha

n it

doe

s to

day

or m

ay c

hoos

e, o

r be

requ

ired

, to

prov

ide

serv

ices

at

adi

ffere

nt l

evel

or

qual

ity.

The

se t

ypes

of

chan

ges

have

a f

isca

l im

pact

to

the

mun

icip

alit

y bu

t are

not

dir

ectl

y re

late

d to

gro

wth

or d

iffer

ent l

evel

s and

type

s of

grow

th.

•T

he is

sue

of lo

ng-t

erm

mai

nten

ance

, rep

air a

nd re

plac

emen

t of i

nfra

stru

ctur

e an

dfa

cilit

ies i

s a g

row

ing

fisca

l con

cern

for

mos

t mun

icip

alit

ies.

Man

y m

unic

ipal

itie

sin

the

Cou

nty

have

beg

un to

mak

e pr

ovis

ions

for a

sset

man

agem

ent b

ut w

ill li

kely

be re

quir

ed to

do

mor

e ov

er th

e co

min

g ye

ars r

egar

dles

s of t

he le

vel o

r loc

atio

n of

grow

th.

Gro

wth

will

con

trib

ute

to t

his

issu

e bo

th b

y pr

ovid

ing

an e

xpan

ded

asse

ssm

ent b

ase t

o fu

nd th

e as

set m

anag

emen

t res

erve

requ

irem

ent a

nd b

y re

quir

ing

addi

tion

s to

mun

icip

al i

nfra

stru

ctur

e an

d fa

cilit

ies t

o m

eet t

he se

rvic

e ne

eds o

f the

HE

MSO

N

new

res

iden

ts a

nd e

mpl

oyee

s th

at w

ill r

equi

re a

ddit

iona

l re

serv

e co

ntri

buti

onne

eds.

Evid

ence

in o

ther

juris

dict

ions

sugg

ests

gro

wth

mun

icip

alit

ies t

hat e

stab

lish

a lo

ng-t

erm

ass

et m

anag

emen

t pl

an a

re b

ette

r po

siti

oned

to

deal

wit

h fis

cal

requ

irem

ents

than

slow

or n

o-gr

owth

mun

icip

aliti

es. T

his f

isca

l ana

lysi

s doe

s not

incl

ude

addi

tion

al a

sset

man

agem

ent c

ontr

ibut

ions

bey

ond

curr

ent p

ract

ices

.

A.

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T C

HA

RG

ES: D

OES

GR

OW

TH P

AY

FO

R G

RO

WTH

?

An

impo

rtan

t con

side

rati

on w

hen

anal

ysin

g th

e fis

cal i

mpa

ct o

f gro

wth

is th

e fu

ndin

gof

the

init

ial c

apit

al c

osts

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

expa

ndin

g inf

rast

ruct

ure t

o m

eet t

he se

rvic

ing

need

s of

dev

elop

men

t. A

ll m

unic

ipal

itie

s in

the

Cou

nty,

and

the

Cou

nty

itse

lf, le

vyde

velo

pmen

t cha

rges

to fu

nd m

unic

ipal

infr

astr

uctu

re. H

owev

er, t

here

are

shor

tfal

ls:

•G

row

th d

oes

not

fully

pay

for

gro

wth

. A

s w

ith

all

mun

icip

aliti

es i

n th

ePr

ovin

ce, u

nder

the

curr

ent D

CA

, new

dev

elop

men

t doe

s not

fully

pay

for t

hein

itia

l ca

pita

l co

sts

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

expa

ndin

g in

fras

truc

ture

to

mee

t th

ese

rvic

ing

need

s of n

ew d

evel

opm

ent.

•T

he D

CA

-leg

isla

ted

exem

ptio

ns fo

r cer

tain

serv

ices

and

the

hist

oric

al se

rvic

ele

vel f

undi

ng c

ap a

re th

e tw

o la

rges

t fac

tors

that

impa

ct a

mun

icip

alit

y’s a

bilit

yto

fund

gro

wth

-rel

ated

cap

ital

wit

hout

neg

ativ

ely

impa

ctin

g th

e ex

isti

ng ta

xpa

yers

. The

ser

vice

s m

ost

adve

rsel

y af

fect

ed a

re t

he ‘s

oft’

serv

ices

of I

ndoo

rR

ecre

atio

n an

d th

e Li

brar

y B

oard

. In

addi

tion

, the

se se

rvic

es a

re la

rgel

y dr

iven

by r

esid

enti

al g

row

th a

nd,

ther

efor

e, u

nder

the

dev

elop

men

t ch

arge

s ar

em

ostl

y fu

nded

by

resi

dent

ial g

row

th.

•T

he fi

scal

impa

ct a

naly

sis h

as c

aptu

red

the

cost

of t

he 1

0% le

gisl

ated

dis

coun

tsbu

t the

re a

re o

ther

dev

elop

men

t cha

rges

fund

ing

shor

tfal

ls th

at h

ave

not b

een

quan

tifie

d.

•In

man

y m

unic

ipal

itie

s, c

urre

nt d

evel

opm

ent

char

ges

rate

s ar

e no

t fu

llyre

cove

ring

all

elig

ible

gro

wth

-rel

ated

cos

ts. M

any

mun

icip

aliti

es in

Ont

ario

are

curr

ently

upd

atin

g de

velo

pmen

t cha

rges

rate

s, in

adv

ance

of t

he e

xpir

y of

the

exis

ting

by-

law

s, as

the

dev

elop

men

t ch

arge

s in

flati

on in

dexi

ng h

as n

otke

pt p

ace

wit

h th

e ac

tual

incr

ease

in c

onst

ruct

ion

cost

s.

HE

MSO

N

•M

any

mun

icip

aliti

es i

n Si

mco

e C

ount

y pr

ovid

e a

redu

ced

deve

lopm

ent

char

ges

rate

or

ex

empt

ion

for

all

or

som

e fo

rms

of

non-

resid

enti

alde

velo

pmen

t. T

he re

duct

ions

or e

xem

ptio

ns re

sult

in a

dev

elop

men

t rev

enue

shor

tfal

l th

at m

ust

be f

unde

d fr

om o

ther

mun

icip

al r

even

ue s

ourc

es,

mos

tno

tabl

y ut

ility

rate

s and

pro

pert

y ta

xes.

B.

RES

IDEN

TIA

L D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

FISC

AL

IMPA

CTS

Tab

le 2

4 pr

ovid

es a

sum

mar

y ov

ervi

ew o

f the

fisc

al im

pact

resu

lts o

f the

four

resi

dent

ial

deve

lopm

ent s

cena

rios

. The

resu

lts c

an b

e su

mm

ariz

ed a

s fol

low

s:

Tow

nshi

ps

•G

ener

ally

, the

Tow

nshi

ps a

re n

egat

ivel

y im

pact

ed b

y re

siden

tial

gro

wth

and

will

exp

erie

nce

an u

pwar

d pr

essu

re o

n ta

x ra

tes.

•M

ore

dens

e de

velo

pmen

t, fr

om a

n op

erat

ing

impa

ct a

naly

sis,

incr

ease

s th

ele

vel o

f neg

ativ

e fis

cal i

mpa

cts.

How

ever

, if a

n ad

just

men

t for

cos

ts is

mad

e to

refle

ct p

oten

tial

serv

icin

g ef

ficie

ncie

s wit

h hi

gher

den

siti

es, t

he n

egat

ive

fisca

lim

pact

s are

slig

htly

redu

ced.

•T

he T

owns

hip

of T

ay s

how

s a

larg

ely

neut

ral i

mpa

ct a

risi

ng f

rom

gro

wth

,re

flect

ing t

he T

owns

hips

’s cu

rren

t hig

h re

side

ntia

l tax

rate

, as c

ompa

red

to th

eot

her T

owns

hips

.•

The

Tow

nshi

p of

Adj

ala-

Tos

oron

tio

disp

lays

the

mos

t si

gnifi

cant

neg

ativ

efis

cal i

mpa

ct fr

om g

row

th, l

ikel

y a

resu

lt o

f the

sig

nific

ant

leve

l of r

even

ueso

urce

s tha

t will

not

incr

ease

wit

h gr

owth

.

Tow

ns •R

esid

enti

al g

row

th re

sult

s in

a ne

utra

l to

posit

ive

fisca

l im

pact

for m

ost o

f the

Tow

ns.

•H

ighe

r lev

els o

f low

den

sity

dev

elop

men

t yie

ld g

reat

er le

vels

of p

osit

ive

fisca

lbe

nefit

s.•

Med

ium

and

hig

her

dens

ity

deve

lopm

ent,

grea

ter

shar

e of

tow

nhou

se u

nits

and

intr

oduc

tion

of

ap

artm

ents

ha

ve

a va

ryin

g im

pact

on

di

ffere

ntm

unic

ipal

itie

s, bu

t gen

eral

ly lo

wer

fisc

al b

enef

its.

If se

rvic

ing

cost

effi

cien

cies

can

be a

chie

ved

wit

h hi

gher

den

sity

deve

lopm

ents

, th

e fis

cal

impa

cts

will

Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact

Townships

Adjala-Tosorontio 5.065% -0.171% 7.803% -0.226% 9.866% -0.191% Not Applicable Not Applicable

Clearview 0.249% -0.109% 1.308% -0.112% 1.699% -0.109% Not Applicable Not Applicable

Essa 0.957% -0.171% 3.781% -0.139% 4.337% -0.143% Not Applicable Not Applicable

Oro-Medonte 1.540% -0.209% 2.521% -0.282% 3.017% -0.286% Not Applicable Not Applicable

Ramara 2.955% -0.079% 4.641% -0.097% 5.965% -0.061% Not Applicable Not Applicable

Severn 2.081% -0.079% 3.353% -0.097% 4.467% -0.061% Not Applicable Not Applicable

Springwater 0.426% -0.209% 1.031% -0.282% 1.501% -0.286% Not Applicable Not Applicable

Tay -0.294% -0.056% 0.187% -0.064% 0.969% -0.047% Not Applicable Not Applicable

Tiny 1.084% -0.102% 1.841% -0.129% 2.595% -0.095% Not Applicable Not Applicable

Towns

Bradford West Gwillimbury -1.944% -0.240% -2.482% -0.326% -2.192% -0.313% -2.299% -0.359%

Collingwood -0.778% -0.163% -1.248% -0.252% -1.392% -0.279% -0.617% -0.262%

Innisfil -0.133% -0.156% -0.080% -0.216% 0.070% -0.218% 0.089% -0.278%

Midland -0.703% -0.071% -0.432% -0.074% -0.207% -0.068% -0.871% -0.120%

New Tecumseth -0.758% -0.163% -0.878% -0.218% -0.758% -0.218% -1.391% -0.325%

Penetanguishene -2.631% -0.071% -2.606% -0.074% -2.332% -0.068% -3.946% -0.120%

Wasaga Beach 0.446% -0.125% 1.392% -0.129% 1.782% -0.122% 1.703% -0.196%

Cities

Barrie -0.372% Not Applicable -0.423% Not Applicable -0.250% Not Applicable -0.361796% Not Applicable

Orillia 0.104% Not Applicable 0.412% Not Applicable 0.687% Not Applicable -0.021797% Not Applicable

At Build-Out

% Change in Tax Rate from 2006

At Build-Out

Scenario 4 - High Density Urban Setting% Change in Tax Rate from 2006

At Build-Out

Scenario 2 - Low Density 2% Change in Tax Rate from 2006

At Build-Out

Scenario 3 - Medium Density Urban Setting% Change in Tax Rate from 2006

TABLE 24

COUNTY OF SIMCOEGROWTH PROCESS COMMITTEE - MUNICIPAL FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE

FISCAL IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT - SUMMARY OF RESULTSALL RESIDENTIAL SCENARIOS

Scenario 1 - Low Density 1

HEMSON

HE

MSO

N

impr

ove.

•T

he T

own

of W

asag

a B

each

dis

play

s a n

eutr

al to

neg

ativ

e fis

cal i

mpa

ct fr

omgr

owth

, lik

ely

the

resu

lt o

f the

dep

ende

nce

of r

even

ue s

ourc

es t

hat

are

not

anti

cipa

ted

to in

crea

se w

ith

grow

th.

Sepa

rate

d C

itie

s

•T

he C

ity

of B

arri

e di

spla

ys a

neu

tral

to sl

ight

ly p

osit

ive

fisca

l im

pact

und

er th

ere

side

ntia

l gro

wth

scen

ario

s.•

The

Cit

y of

Ori

llia

dis

play

s a n

eutr

al to

slig

htly

neg

ativ

e fis

cal i

mpa

ct u

nder

the

resi

dent

ial g

row

th sc

enar

ios.

Cou

nty

•T

he C

ount

y of

Sim

coe

disp

lays

a n

eutr

al t

o sl

ight

ly p

osit

ive

fisca

l im

pact

unde

r all

resi

dent

ial g

row

th sc

enar

ios.

C.

NO

N-R

ESID

ENTI

AL

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T FI

SCA

L IM

PAC

TS

Tab

le 2

5 pr

ovid

es a

sum

mar

y ov

ervi

ew o

f th

e fis

cal

impa

ct r

esul

ts o

f th

e fo

ur n

on-

resi

dent

ial d

evel

opm

ent s

cena

rios

. The

resu

lts c

an b

e su

mm

ariz

ed a

s fol

low

s:

Tow

nshi

ps

•G

ener

ally

, the

Tow

nshi

ps d

ispl

ay a

neg

ativ

e fis

cal i

mpa

ct to

bot

h em

ploy

men

tla

nd a

nd p

opul

atio

n-re

late

d no

n-re

side

ntia

l lan

d us

es.

•Fo

r som

e T

owns

hips

, the

neg

ativ

e im

pact

s are

sign

ifica

nt.

•Po

pula

tion

-rel

ated

em

ploy

men

t la

nd u

ses,

or c

omm

erci

al/r

etai

l ac

tivi

ties

,di

spla

y th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t neg

ativ

e fis

cal i

mpa

cts.

Tow

ns •Em

ploy

men

t la

nd u

ses,

for

exam

ple,

ind

ustr

ial

or m

anuf

actu

ring

act

ivit

ies,

disp

lay

neut

ral t

o po

siti

ve fi

scal

impa

cts f

or m

ost o

f the

Tow

ns.

•Po

pula

tion

-rel

ated

em

ploy

men

t us

es,

com

mer

cial

/ret

ail,

disp

lay

neut

ral

tone

gati

ve fi

scal

impa

cts f

or m

ost o

f the

Tow

ns.

Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact Lower Tier Impact Upper Tier Impact

Townships

Adjala-Tosorontio 15.936% -0.207% 20.681% -0.275% 20.645% -0.089% 39.281% -0.178%

Clearview 1.881% -0.206% 2.452% -0.274% 4.668% -0.089% 8.962% -0.178%

Essa 1.539% -0.206% 2.001% -0.274% 4.621% -0.089% 8.825% -0.178%

Oro-Medonte 3.188% -0.206% 4.194% -0.274% 4.889% -0.089% 9.570% -0.178%

Ramara 4.529% -0.206% 5.902% -0.274% 7.569% -0.089% 14.530% -0.178%

Severn 1.317% -0.206% 1.720% -0.274% 3.800% -0.089% 7.326% -0.178%

Springwater 4.853% -0.206% 6.348% -0.274% 7.436% -0.089% 14.384% -0.178%

Tay -0.791% -0.206% -1.014% -0.274% 3.814% -0.089% 7.082% -0.178%

Tiny 2.572% -0.206% 3.378% -0.274% 4.448% -0.089% 8.675% -0.178%

Towns

Bradford West Gwillimbury -0.993% -0.265% -1.302% -0.352% 0.383% -0.163% 0.741% -0.326%

Collingwood -1.301% -0.265% -1.704% -0.352% 0.137% -0.163% 0.265% -0.326%

Innisfil 0.207% -0.265% 0.273% -0.352% 1.213% -0.163% 2.375% -0.326%

Midland -2.210% -0.206% -2.881% -0.274% 0.197% -0.089% 0.378% -0.178%

New Tecumseth -0.683% -0.265% -0.898% -0.352% 0.438% -0.163% 0.854% -0.326%

Penetanguishene -4.295% -0.206% -5.488% -0.274% 0.406% -0.089% 0.748% -0.178%

Wasaga Beach 1.756% -0.265% 2.297% -0.352% 3.545% -0.163% 6.832% -0.326%

Cities

Barrie -0.253% Not Applicable -0.336% Not Applicable -0.152% Not Applicable -0.301% Not Applicable

Orillia -1.365% Not Applicable -1.795% Not Applicable -0.698% Not Applicable -1.354% Not Applicable

TABLE 25

COUNTY OF SIMCOE

At Build-Out At Build-Out At Build-Out

Scenario 2 - Employment Land High Scenario 3 - Population Related Low Scenario 4 - Population Related High% Change in Tax Rate from 2006 % Change in Tax Rate from 2006

GROWTH PROCESS COMMITTEE - MUNICIPAL FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEEFISCAL IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT - SUMMARY OF RESULTS

ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL SCENARIOS

At Build-Out

% Change in Tax Rate from 2006 Scenario 1 - Employment Land Low

% Change in Tax Rate from 2006

HEMSON

HE

MSO

N

Sepa

rate

d C

itie

s

•T

he C

ity

of B

arri

e di

spla

ys a

neu

tral

to

slig

htly

pos

itiv

e fis

cal i

mpa

cts

unde

rbo

th th

e em

ploy

men

t lan

d an

d po

pula

tion

-rel

ated

non

-res

iden

tial

scen

ario

s.•

The

Cit

y of

Oril

lia d

ispl

ays

a sli

ghtl

y po

siti

ve fi

scal

impa

ct u

nder

bot

h th

eem

ploy

men

t lan

d an

d po

pula

tion

-rel

ated

non

-res

iden

tial

scen

ario

s.

Cou

nty

•T

he C

ount

y of

Sim

coe

disp

lays

a n

eutr

al t

o sl

ight

ly p

osit

ive

fisca

l im

pact

unde

r bo

th t

he e

mpl

oym

ent

land

and

pop

ulat

ion-

rela

ted

non-

resi

dent

ial

scen

ario

s.

D.

DIS

CU

SSIO

N O

F FI

ND

ING

S

The

Fis

cal I

mpa

ct o

f G

row

th I

s N

eutr

al t

o P

osit

ive

In g

ener

al, t

he re

sult

s of t

he fi

scal

impa

ct a

naly

sis a

re c

onsi

sten

t wit

h th

e an

alys

isun

dert

aken

in

othe

r so

uthe

rn O

ntar

io j

uris

dict

ions

: de

velo

pmen

t at

bui

ld-o

utge

nera

lly re

sult

s in

neut

ral t

o po

siti

ve fi

scal

ben

efit

s for

mun

icip

alit

ies.

Fund

ing

of C

apit

al I

nfra

stru

ctur

e

An

impo

rtan

t pro

visi

on to

this

gen

eral

find

ing

is th

at g

row

th d

oes n

ot fu

lly p

ay fo

rth

e in

itia

l ca

pita

l co

st

of

mun

icip

al

infr

astr

uctu

re.

Legi

slat

ive

rest

rict

ions

,ex

empt

ions

and

cei

lings

impo

sed

by th

e D

evel

opm

ent C

harg

es A

ct re

sult

in c

apit

alfu

ndin

g sh

ortf

alls

ev

en

with

th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of

m

axim

um

perm

issib

lede

velo

pmen

t ch

arge

s ra

tes.

The

DC

fun

ding

sho

rtfa

lls a

re i

ncre

ased

whe

nco

nsid

erat

ion

is g

iven

to

mun

icip

al p

olic

ies,

prac

tice

s an

d ra

tes

that

pro

vide

for

non-

stat

utor

y ex

empt

ions

and

the

redu

ctio

n or

pha

se-in

of c

harg

es fo

r som

e la

ndus

es.

In a

ddit

ion,

in re

cent

yea

rs th

e de

velo

pmen

t cos

t adj

ustm

ent i

ndex

has

not

kept

pac

e w

ith t

he in

crea

se in

con

stru

ctio

n co

sts,

resu

lting

in a

dditi

onal

fund

ing

shor

tfal

ls. T

hese

cap

ital

fund

ing

shor

tfal

ls a

re fi

nanc

ed fr

om th

e pr

oper

ty ta

x ba

sean

d ut

ility

rate

s.

HE

MSO

N

Rel

ianc

e on

Pay

men

ts-i

n-L

ieu

of T

axat

ion

and

Unc

ondi

tion

al G

rant

s

The

ana

lysi

s has

show

n th

at d

evel

opm

ent g

ener

ally

cre

ates

fisc

al p

ress

ures

on

the

Tow

nshi

ps.

Thi

s fin

ding

was

to

som

e de

gree

sur

pris

ing.

Tab

le 2

6 di

spla

ys a

sum

mar

y of

the

mai

n fu

ndin

g so

urce

s of

mun

icip

al e

xpen

ditu

res

by e

ach

of t

hem

unic

ipal

itie

s in

the

Cou

nty.

As s

how

n, th

e T

owns

hips

hav

e a

grea

ter r

elia

nce

onpa

ymen

ts-i

n-lie

u (P

ILs)

of t

axat

ion

and

unco

ndit

iona

l gra

nts t

han

do th

e T

owns

,th

e C

ount

y an

d th

e C

ity

of B

arri

e. F

or th

e T

owns

hips

, the

se tw

o so

urce

s gen

eral

lyac

coun

t for

12%

-20%

of t

he fu

ndin

g of

net

tax

levy

exp

endi

ture

s, an

d as

hig

h as

40%

and

50%

in tw

o T

owns

hips

. A

s a c

ompa

riso

n, th

e T

owns

, wit

h th

e ex

cept

ion

of W

asag

a B

each

and

the

Cit

y of

Ori

llia,

onl

y fu

nd 1

%-4

% o

f th

e ne

t ta

x le

vyex

pend

itur

es fr

om th

ese

sour

ces.

The

impo

rtan

ce o

f thi

s iss

ue in

the

cont

ext o

f fis

cal i

mpa

ct a

naly

sis i

s tha

t gen

eral

lyth

ese

two

reve

nue

sour

ces d

o no

t inc

reas

e in

resp

onse

to g

row

th.

Paym

ents

-in-

lieu

of ta

xati

on a

re g

ener

ated

from

Pro

vinc

ial a

nd F

eder

al g

over

nmen

t bui

ldin

gs. M

ost

fisca

l im

pact

ana

lyse

s do

not

ass

ume

a gr

owth

in

PILs

as

a re

sult

of

addi

tion

alde

velo

pmen

t.

The

unc

ondi

tion

al

gran

ts

mon

ies

are

larg

ely

from

th

e O

ntar

io M

unic

ipal

Part

ners

hip

Fund

(O

MPF

). T

he P

rovi

nce

desc

ribe

s the

se fu

nds a

s:

The

int

rodu

ctio

n of

the

Ont

ario

Mun

icip

al P

artn

ersh

ip F

und

— a

clea

r an

dtr

ansp

aren

t sy

stem

of

gran

ts —

is

part

of t

he P

rovi

nce'

s ov

eral

l com

mitm

ent

tosu

ppor

t m

unic

ipal

ities

. It

ass

ists

mun

icip

aliti

es w

ith t

heir

shar

e of

soc

ial p

rogr

amco

sts;

incl

udes

equ

aliz

atio

n m

easu

res

for

area

s w

ith li

mite

d pr

oper

ty a

sses

smen

t;ad

dres

ses

chal

leng

es f

aced

by

nort

hern

and

rur

al c

omm

uniti

es;

and

resp

onds

to

polic

ing

cost

s in

rur

al c

omm

uniti

es.

The

tota

l lev

el o

f OM

PF fu

ndin

g ha

s rem

aine

d un

chan

ged

for s

ever

al y

ears

and

the

2008

bud

get i

s the

sam

e as

200

7. G

ener

ally

, ind

ivid

ual m

unic

ipal

itie

s hav

e re

ceiv

edth

e sa

me

leve

l of O

MPF

ove

r th

e la

st s

ever

al y

ears

. The

re is

no

expe

ctat

ion

that

this

fund

ing

will

incr

ease

.

The

fisc

al im

pact

ana

lysi

s has

sho

wn

that

thos

e m

unic

ipal

itie

s wit

h hi

gher

leve

lsof

PIL

s and

unc

ondi

tion

al g

rant

fund

ing

disp

lay

a ne

gati

ve fi

scal

impa

ct in

resp

onse

to g

row

th. T

his i

mpa

ct is

not

a d

irec

t res

ult o

f gro

wth

but

rath

er a

func

tion

of th

e

Total Net Expenditure Other Revenues Transfers From

Own Funds

Supplementary Taxes and

Adjustments Net Expenditure Payments-In-Lieu

of Taxation (PILs)Unconditional

Grants Tax Levy

PILS and Unconditionals

Grants as % of Net Expenditures

Townships

Adjala-Tosorontio 6,127,778$ 2,013,823$ 243,318$ 20,711$ 3,849,926$ 727,332$ 763,679$ 2,347,789$ 39%

Clearview 9,410,669$ 933,657$ 539,451$ (115,964)$ 8,053,525$ 137,874$ 1,426,000$ 6,657,094$ 19%

Essa 8,951,824$ 1,024,260$ 427,664$ (57,337)$ 7,557,237$ 2,524,262$ 1,218,941$ 3,814,034$ 50%

Oro-Medonte 13,385,524$ 3,088,331$ 221,947$ 894,896$ 9,180,350$ 101,770$ 1,006,432$ 8,072,148$ 12%

Ramara 8,982,147$ 2,763,587$ 559,662$ 136,683$ 5,522,215$ 83,711$ 774,420$ 4,664,084$ 16%

Severn 8,884,023$ 2,150,191$ 72,973$ 167,392$ 6,493,467$ 137,209$ 643,860$ 5,712,398$ 12%

Springwater 12,510,477$ 1,726,154$ 3,026,730$ 140,928$ 7,616,665$ 258,864$ 661,968$ 6,695,833$ 12%

Tay 7,982,944$ 1,990,724$ 142,270$ 65,957$ 5,783,993$ 67,873$ 1,051,904$ 4,664,216$ 19%

Tiny 9,579,660$ 3,169,022$ 150,770$ (851,293)$ 7,111,161$ 151,682$ 818,072$ 6,141,417$ 14%

Towns

Bradford West Gwillimbury 18,431,801$ 3,104,876$ 361,355$ 148,463$ 14,817,107$ 57,305$ 63,000$ 14,696,802$ 1%

Collingwood 21,857,116$ 3,384,199$ 175,486$ 1,151,332$ 17,146,099$ 149,485$ -$ 16,996,614$ 1%

Innisfil 27,251,277$ 7,959,994$ 709,725$ 319,864$ 18,261,694$ 215,361$ -$ 18,046,333$ 1%

Midland 17,300,844$ 2,123,285$ 107,877$ 779,893$ 14,289,789$ 227,013$ 234,000$ 13,967,831$ 3%

New Tecumseth 20,058,943$ 2,631,799$ 1,575,231$ 1,437,076$ 14,414,837$ 119,581$ 213,332$ 14,066,787$ 2%

Penetanguishene 8,132,265$ 496,598$ 638,780$ 253,096$ 6,743,791$ 156,284$ 106,000$ 6,547,315$ 4%

Wasaga Beach 18,068,449$ 4,671,258$ 1,246,392$ 243,090$ 11,907,709$ 412,729$ 897,412$ 10,597,568$ 11%

Simcoe County 95,097,729$ 12,381,176$ 2,544,326$ 1,396,372$ 78,775,855$ 1,640,443$ 603,000$ 76,532,412$ 3%

Cities

Orillia 41,515,146$ 6,105,238$ 1,033,082$ 146,326$ 34,230,500$ 2,952,153$ 1,686,000$ 29,246,788$ 14%

Barrie 159,412,859$ 24,253,034$ 6,048,635$ 3,681,658$ 125,429,532$ 1,424,684$ -$ 124,004,848$ 1%

Municipality

TABLE 26

COUNTY OF SIMCOEGROWTH PROCESS COMMITTEE - MUNICIPAL FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSISPAYMENTS-IN-LIEU AND UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AS A SHARE OF NET EXPENDITURES

HEMSON

HE

MSO

N

exis

ting

mun

icip

al fu

ndin

g st

ruct

ure.

Pre

vaili

ng T

ax R

ates

The

re is

a c

lear

cor

rela

tion

bet

wee

n th

e fis

cal i

mpa

ct re

sult

s and

cur

rent

tax

rate

s.T

hose

mun

icip

alit

ies t

hat h

ave

low

er ta

x ra

tes d

ispl

ay a

mor

e si

gnifi

cant

neg

ativ

efis

cal i

mpa

ct fr

om g

row

th. T

his

is m

ost

pron

ounc

ed w

ith

the

Tow

nshi

ps in

tha

tth

ey g

ener

ally

hav

e si

gnifi

cant

ly lo

wer

tax

rate

s, as

show

n on

Tab

le 4

.

Ove

r tim

e th

e T

owns

hips

are

like

ly to

exp

erie

nce

upw

ard

pres

sure

s on

tax

rate

s. A

sgr

owth

and

dev

elop

men

t occ

urs,

serv

ices

are

dem

ande

d at

a h

ighe

r lev

el, a

nd a

lso

paym

ents

-in-

lieu

and

unco

ndit

iona

l gra

nt re

venu

e re

mai

n la

rgel

y un

chan

ged.

Tax

Rat

ios

The

pre

vaili

ng t

ax ra

tios

, the

res

iden

tial

tax

rat

e as

com

pare

d to

the

com

mer

cial

and

indu

stri

al ta

x ra

tes i

n m

any

mun

icip

alit

ies i

n th

e C

ount

y ar

e qu

ite

narr

ow, a

ssh

own

on T

able

s 5 a

nd 6

, res

pect

ivel

y. A

resu

lt o

f the

hig

her t

ax ra

tios

is th

at ta

xre

venu

es g

ener

ated

by

a do

llar

of r

esid

enti

al a

sses

smen

t an

d no

n-re

side

ntia

las

sess

men

t ar

e ve

ry

sim

ilar.

Thi

s m

eans

th

at

attr

acti

ng

non-

resi

dent

ial

deve

lopm

ent d

oes n

ot g

ener

ate

the

fisca

l ben

efit

it o

nce

did

and

ther

e is

a g

reat

ereq

ualiz

atio

n of

taxa

tion

shar

ing

amon

gst d

iffer

ent p

rope

rty

clas

ses.

Est

imat

ed A

sses

smen

t V

alue

s

Tab

le 2

7 pr

ovid

es a

sum

mar

y of

the

fis

cal

impa

cts

of r

esid

enti

al g

row

th o

n th

elo

wer

-tie

r mun

icip

alit

ies i

n th

e C

ount

y of

Sim

coe.

The

tabl

e dis

play

s the

pre

vaili

ngav

erag

e re

side

ntia

l as

sess

men

t pe

r un

it i

n ea

ch m

unic

ipal

ity

and

the

rang

e of

esti

mat

ed a

sses

smen

t of n

ew re

siden

tial

uni

ts.

The

nex

t se

t of

col

umns

pro

vide

s th

e ca

lcul

ated

ran

ge o

f fis

cal

“bre

ak-e

ven”

aver

age

asse

ssm

ents

. T

his

is t

he a

sses

smen

t th

at w

ould

gen

erat

e pr

oper

ty t

axre

venu

es e

qual

to th

e in

crea

se in

tax

levy

exp

endi

ture

s gen

erat

ed b

y th

e ho

useh

old.

The

fin

al s

et o

f co

lum

ns d

ispl

ays

the

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n th

e es

tim

ated

and

the

brea

k-ev

en a

sses

smen

t val

ues.

Thi

s sum

mar

y is

con

sist

ent w

ith

the

prev

ious

com

men

tary

and

illu

stra

tes t

hat t

he

Fiscal Impact of Growth is NegativeAdjala-Tosorontio $290,000 $220,000 - $290,000 $385,000 - $420,000 -$165,000 - -$130,000Oro-Medonte $290,000 $255,000 - $300,000 $360,000 - $395,000 -$105,000 - -$95,000Essa $180,000 $180,000 - $275,000 $280,000 - $305,000 -$100,000 - -$30,000Ramara $230,000 $175,000 - $230,000 $260,000 - $315,000 -$85,000 - -$85,000Severn $220,000 $175,000 - $215,000 $255,000 - $290,000 -$80,000 - -$75,000Tiny $240,000 $185,000 - $245,000 $240,000 - $285,000 -$55,000 - -$40,000Springwater $250,000 $245,000 - $300,000 $290,000 - $315,000 -$45,000 - -$15,000Clearview $220,000 $190,000 - $235,000 $225,000 - $245,000 -$35,000 - -$10,000Tay $140,000 $140,000 - $200,000 $165,000 - $195,000 -$25,000 - $5,000Wasaga Beach $200,000 $190,000 - $245,000 $210,000 - $265,000 -$20,000 - -$20,000

Fiscal Impact of Growth is Neutral to PositiveMidland $140,000 $140,000 - $210,000 $145,000 - $185,000 -$5,000 - $25,000Innisfil $240,000 $215,000 - $265,000 $215,000 - $255,000 $0 - $10,000Collingwood $190,000 $190,000 - $270,000 $180,000 - $230,000 $10,000 - $40,000Penetanguishene $160,000 $160,000 - $210,000 $140,000 - $165,000 $20,000 - $45,000New Tecumseth $230,000 $225,000 - $270,000 $185,000 - $220,000 $40,000 - $50,000Bradford-West Gwillimbury $240,000 $235,000 - $320,000 $180,000 - $215,000 $55,000 - $105,000

Barrie $190,000 $190,000 - $300,000 $175,000 - $200,000 $15,000 - $100,000Orillia $150,000 $150,000 - $225,000 $190,000 - $230,000 -$40,000 - -$5,000

Difference Between Estimated Average and Breakeven Assessments

Prevailing Average Assessment Per

Household

Range of Estimated Average Assesssments Per Household Used in the

Fiscal Impact Analysis

Calculated Breakeven Average Assesssments Per Household Municipality

TABLE 27

COUNTY OF SIMCOEGROWTH PROCESS COMMITTEE - MUNICIPAL FINANCE SUB-COMMITTEE

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSISESTIMATED ASSESSMENT VALUES VS. CALCULATED BREAKEVEN ASSESSMENT VALUES

HEMSON

HE

MSO

N

Tow

nshi

ps a

nd th

e T

own

of W

asag

a B

each

are

neg

ativ

ely

impa

cted

by

grow

th. T

hene

gati

ve im

pact

is a

func

tion

of t

he a

sses

smen

t val

ues b

ut a

lso

the

prev

ailin

g fis

cal

situ

atio

n an

d re

lati

vely

low

tax

rate

s in

the

Tow

nshi

ps.

The

Tow

ns g

ener

ally

der

ive

a po

siti

ve f

iscal

im

pact

fro

m g

row

th. A

sig

nific

ant

cont

ribu

ting

fac

tor

for

the

Tow

n is

tha

t th

e av

erag

e va

lues

of

new

uni

ts a

rees

tim

ated

to b

e gr

eate

r tha

n th

e pr

evai

ling

aver

age

asse

ssm

ent o

f exi

stin

g un

its.

Inad

diti

on, t

he T

owns

hav

e a

low

relia

nce

on u

ncon

diti

onal

gra

nts a

nd o

ther

loca

lre

venu

e so

urce

s an

d as

suc

h, h

ave

prev

ailin

g ta

x ra

tes

that

are

set

to

fully

fun

dho

useh

old

expe

ndit

ures

.

Impa

cts

at t

he C

ount

y L

evel

The

ana

lysi

s has

show

n th

at th

e C

ount

y di

spla

ys a

gen

eral

pos

itiv

e fis

cal b

enef

it to

grow

th re

gard

less

of t

he lo

cati

on o

f gro

wth

in th

e C

ount

y. It

is im

port

ant t

o no

teth

at a

pos

itiv

e fis

cal

bene

fit a

t th

e C

ount

y le

vel

accr

ues

to a

ll re

siden

ts o

f th

eC

ount

y by

way

of l

ower

ing

uppe

r-ti

er ta

xes.

E.C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

The

ana

lysis

is

inte

nded

to

prov

ide

the

sub-

com

mitt

ee w

ith

a to

ol t

o an

swer

the

ques

tion

:

Whe

ther

or

not

grow

th is

req

uire

d to

impr

ove

the

com

mun

ity's

fin

anci

al p

ositi

on,

orpr

ovid

es o

ther

ben

efits

suc

h as

a g

reat

er le

vel o

f co

mm

unity

, ec

onom

ic o

ppor

tuni

ty o

rot

hers

.

The

gen

eral

find

ing

of t

he f

isca

l im

pact

ana

lysis

is t

hat

grow

th, b

oth

resid

enti

al a

ndno

n-re

siden

tial

, res

ults

in fi

scal

cha

lleng

es to

mun

icip

alit

ies i

n Si

mco

e C

ount

y. U

nder

the

curr

ent

Dev

elop

men

t C

harg

es A

ct,

grow

th d

oes

not

fully

pay

for

gro

wth

and

deve

lopm

ent r

equi

res a

mun

icip

alit

y to

exp

end

tax

dolla

rs to

fund

a sh

are

of e

xpan

ding

mun

icip

al in

fras

truc

ture

and

serv

ices

.

Whe

n in

itia

l cap

ital

cos

ts a

re fu

nded

, gro

wth

gen

erat

es fi

scal

ben

efit

s fo

r th

e C

ount

yan

d m

ost T

owns

. For

the

Tow

nshi

ps, g

row

th, u

nder

the

curr

ent f

isca

l str

uctu

re, r

esul

tsin

upw

ard

pres

sure

on

tax

rate

s.

HE

MSO

N

In t

he c

onte

xt o

f th

e Si

mco

e G

row

th A

rea

Plan

Stu

dy,

the

fisca

l im

pact

ana

lysi

sill

ustr

ates

tha

t gr

owth

is

not

requ

ired

to

impr

ove

a co

mm

unit

y’s

fisca

l po

siti

on.

Inre

alit

y, a

ll m

unic

ipal

itie

s in

the

Cou

nty

will

exp

erie

nce

grow

th a

nd w

ill b

e re

quir

ed to

reac

t to

the

serv

icin

g ne

eds o

f dev

elop

men

t and

add

ress

the

resu

ltin

g fis

cal p

ress

ures

.

The

re a

re m

any

reas

ons w

hy a

com

mun

ity,

bot

h lo

cally

and

at a

Cou

nty

leve

l, be

nefit

from

hav

ing

a va

riet

y an

d ba

lanc

e in

type

, loc

atio

n an

d qu

anti

ty o

f gro

wth

. Pro

vidi

nga

vari

ety

of ty

pes a

nd lo

cati

ons o

f res

iden

tial

dev

elop

men

t com

bine

d w

ith

diffe

rent

loca

lem

ploy

men

t opp

ortu

niti

es c

ontr

ibut

e to

ach

ievi

ng a

com

plet

e co

mm

unit

y.

The

ana

lysis

has

show

n th

at fi

scal

issu

es a

re im

port

ant a

nd a

ll m

unic

ipal

itie

s will

nee

dto

resp

ond

to fi

scal

pre

ssur

es o

f gro

wth

, but

shou

ld n

ot b

e th

e cr

itic

al fa

ctor

in m

akin

gde

cisi

ons a

bout

spec

ific

loca

tion

s, qu

antu

m o

r typ

es o

f dev

elop

men

t.

An

impo

rtan

t fin

ding

of t

he a

naly

sis is

that

gro

wth

of a

ll ty

pes y

ield

s a g

ener

al p

osit

ive

fisca

l im

pact

on

the

Cou

nty.

The

refo

re,

as g

row

th o

ccur

s an

ywhe

re w

ithi

n in

the

Cou

nty,

all

resi

dent

s sha

re th

e fis

cal b

enef

its.

HEMSON

APPENDIX E

Details on the Distribution of Population and Employment Growth

Simcoe Area Growth Plan Distribution of Population Growth, 2006 to 2031

2006 Census Approved Growth From Growth Growth From Total Official Plan 2006 to Official Allocated to Unallocated Total 2031 2006 to Growth

Municipality Population Population Target Plan Target County Growth Population Plan Allocation

Adjala-Tosorontio 11,100 14,200 3,100 - - 14,200 3,100 New Tecumseth 28,800 34,000 5,200 3,000 12,000 49,000 20,200 Bradford-West Gwillimbury 25,000 49,700 24,700 - - 49,700 24,700 Innisfil 32,400 47,000 14,600 2,000 16,000 65,000 32,600 Essa 17,600 22,900 5,300 - - 22,900 5,300 Clearview 14,600 19,500 4,900 3,000 3,500 26,000 11,400 Collingwood 18,000 25,000 7,000 3,200 2,000 30,200 12,200 Wasaga Beach 15,600 35,000 19,400 - - 35,000 19,400 Springwater 18,100 23,500 5,400 1,500 1,500 26,500 8,400 Oro-Medonte 20,800 28,100 7,300 - - 28,100 7,300 Ramara 9,800 15,500 5,700 - - 15,500 5,700 Severn 12,500 20,200 7,700 - - 20,200 7,700 Tay 10,100 11,300 1,200 - - 11,300 1,200 Tiny 11,200 13,900 2,700 - - 13,900 2,700 Midland 16,900 19,700 2,800 - - 19,700 2,800 Penetanguishene 9,700 10,800 1,100 1,500 - 12,300 2,600 Sub-Total County of Simcoe 272,200 390,300 118,100 14,200 35,000 439,500 167,300

City of Barrie 133,500 175,000 41,500 - 10,000 185,000 51,500 City of Orillia 31,400 41,000 9,600 - - 41,000 9,600

First Nations 1,500 1,500 - - - 1,500 -

Total 438,600 607,800 169,200 14,200 45,000 667,000 228,400 Check 14,200 45,000

- - Notes: 2006 Census population is total population, adjusted upwards to include an approximately 4% under-coverage.

Approved Official Plan population targets are also adjusted upwards to include an approximately 4% under-coverage where required.Approved official plan forecast for Adjala-Tosorontio is the mid-point of the range provided in the official plan. Approved official plan forecast for Oro-Medonte is the low-end of the range provided in the official plan. First Nations population held constant at 1,500 through forecast period.

Hemson Consulting Ltd. 2008

Simcoe Area Growth Plan Distribution of Employment Growth, 2006 to 2031

2001 Census 2001 Census 2001 2006 Census 2006 Census 2006 Provincial Provincial Forecast Employment Population Emlpoyment Activity Population Employment Activity 2031 Growth Unallocated in 2031 Growth

Municipality Rate Rate Allocation 2031 Employment 2006 to 2031

Adjala-Tosorontio 10,100 1,300 13% 10,700 1,600 15% 2,100 - 2,100 500 New Tecumseth 26,100 17,300 66% 27,700 19,700 71% 26,300 - 26,300 6,600 Bradford-West Gwillimbury 22,200 6,700 30% 24,000 8,000 33% 10,700 5,500 16,200 8,200 Innisfil 28,700 5,900 21% 31,200 5,700 18% 7,600 5,500 13,100 7,400 Essa 16,800 6,800 41% 16,900 7,700 45% 10,300 - 10,300 2,600 Clearview 13,800 3,800 27% 14,100 4,400 31% 5,800 - 5,800 1,500 Collingwood 16,000 10,800 68% 17,300 10,800 62% 14,400 - 14,400 3,600 Wasaga Beach 12,400 2,300 19% 15,000 3,100 20% 4,100 - 4,100 1,000 Springwater 16,100 4,400 27% 17,500 5,000 29% 6,700 - 6,700 1,700 Oro-Medonte 18,300 4,200 23% 20,000 4,700 23% 6,200 - 6,200 1,600 Ramara 8,600 1,900 22% 9,400 1,900 20% 2,500 - 2,500 600 Severn 11,100 3,500 31% 12,000 3,900 33% 5,300 - 5,300 1,300 Tay 9,200 1,400 16% 9,700 1,500 15% 2,000 - 2,000 500 Tiny 9,000 1,300 14% 10,800 1,400 13% 1,900 - 1,900 500 Midland 16,200 10,400 64% 16,300 12,000 74% 16,000 - 16,000 4,000 Penetanguishene 8,300 4,400 53% 9,400 5,300 56% 7,000 - 7,000 1,800 Sub-Total County of Simcoe 243,100 86,400 36% 262,000 96,400 37% 128,900 11,000 139,900 43,500

- - - - - - - - - - City of Barrie 103,700 52,700 51% 128,400 64,300 50% 88,000 2,000 90,000 25,700 City of Orillia 29,100 16,100 55% 30,300 19,700 65% 21,000 - 21,000 1,300

- - - - - - - - - First Nations 1,100 3,100 272% 1,500 3,100 0% 3,100 - 3,100 -

- - - - - - - - - - Total 377,100 158,200 42% 422,200 183,500 43% 241,000 13,000 254,000 70,500

Notes: 2006 Census Employment is total employment with "No Fixed Place of Work" redistributed in accordance with regular shares of 2006 Place of Work and At Home employment 2001 Census Employment is similarly adjusted.

Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2008

HEMSON

APPENDIX F

Estimate of Long-Range Employment Land Requirements

HEMSON

SIMCOE AREA GROWTH PLAN

ESTIMATE OF EMPLOYMENT LAND REQUIREMENTS2006 - 2031

An estimate of the employment land requirements forthe Simcoe County Area has been prepared using the2006 Census employment figure of 183,500 jobs and theProvincial Growth Plan employment allocation of254,000 jobs in 2031. There are three steps to estimatingthe employment land requirements:

• The first step is to estimate employment by thethree land-use types: major office employment;employment land employment and population-related employment. For the Simcoe CountyArea, employment land employment and majoroffice employment are combined into a singlecategory.

• The second step is to apply a range of densityfactors to the forecast growth in employmentland and major office employment to estimatethe land requirements. A range of density isapplied, from a low density of 30 jobs per netha to a high density of 40 jobs per net ha.

• The final step is to compare the estimate ofemployment land need to the currentlydesignated employment land supply. Thecomparison of supply and demand focusses onthe southern communities in Simcoe, wheredemand for employment land is anticipated tobe the strongest.

As shown in the table below, employment land andmajor office employment combined are forecast to growby approximately 32,800 jobs from 2006 to 2031. Thisrepresents approximately 47% of the overall employmentgrowth.

2

HEMSON

Employment Forecast By Major Type Simcoe County Area 2006 to 2031

Type 2006 2031 Growth 2006 - 2031

Share

Employment Land and Major Office

Rural and Farm-Based

Population-Related

97,200

4,900

81,400

130,000

4,900

119,100

32,800

-

37,700

47%

0%

53%

Total Employment 183,500 254,000 70,500 100%

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., based on 2006 Census employment information and the Provincial Growth Plan employment allocationof 254,000 jobs in 2031.

As shown in the table on the following page, this resultsin a requirement for between approximately 700 and 900net ha of employment land in south Simcoe to 2031.The following details regarding the summary tablewarrant attention.

• Note 1: Long-term vacancy is based on 10% of thetotal estimated net occupied and vacantemployment land supply for the south Simcoecommunities of approximately 3,400 ha, excludinglands designated around the Bradford By-Pass.

• Note 2: A share of 80% of the total County-wideemployment land employment growth reflects theanticipation that most but not all futureemployment land employment will likely be

concentrated in the south. The southerncommunities' current share of employment landemployment and the estimated occupiedemployment land supply is approximately 60%.

• Note 3: Population-related employment onemployment land is estimated as 5% of the growthin population-related employment for the southerncommunities, approximately 22,620 jobs. 22,620jobs is 60% of the overall growth of 37,700population-related jobs for the County from 2006 to2031. Taking 5% of 22,620 jobs results in anestimate of approximately 1,100 population-relatedemployment jobs on employment land.

3

HEMSON

Estimated Employment Land Need South Simcoe Communities

Estimated Net Vacant Employment Land Supply 2006 Existing Net Ha

City of Barrie Town of Innisfill Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Town of New Tecumseth

450140420410

Total Estimated Net Vacant Supply: Less: Bradford By-Pass (Highway 400–404 Link) Less: Adjustment For Long-Term Vacancy (1)Estimated 2006 Net Effective Supply

1,420150

340930

Estimated Employment Land Employment Growth, 2006 to 2031 Employment

Estimated Employment Land Employment Growth, All of the SimcoeCounty Area, 2006 to 2031 under Growth Plan forecast allocation

Share Allocated to South Simcoe Communities (2)

Employment Land Employment Growth, South Simcoe

Population-Related Employment on Employment Land (3)

Total Growth in Employment on Employment Land, 2006 to 2031

32,800

80%

26,200

1,100

27,300

Estimated Employment Land Requirements, 2006 to 2031 Net Ha Required

At 40 jobs per net ha: At 35 jobs per net ha: At 30 jobs per net ha:

680780910

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., based upon updated supply information. Supply for the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury includesdesignated employment land around the Highway 400-404 link and the Highway 400–88 Special Policy Area.

HEMSON

APPENDIX G

Estimate of Recreation-based Housing Units

HEMSON

Estimated Recreation-Based Housing Growth Simcoe County Area 2006

Estimated Seasonal and Recreational Housing Units, 2006

1 T l i d lli (2006 C ) 180 100

Simcoe County Area, 2006 Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2008

1 Total private dwellings (2006 Census) 180,100

2 Private dwellings occupied by usual residents (2006 Census)* 156,700

3 Difference includes marginal dwellings, vacant units, and units occupied by foreign or temporary 23,400residents. For the Simcoe County Area, most of this difference is likely made up of the marginal and vacant units which would include most seasonal or recreational dwellings as the owners wouldvacant units, which would include most seasonal or recreational dwellings, as the owners wouldhave a usual place of residence elsewhere: e.g. the Census would count an individual at home in Toronto and count their cottage in Simcoe as vacant.

4 Normal expected vacancy rate in an urban location with few seasonal or recreational units. 3.5%To estimate this rate, the figure for the City of Barrie is used to represent an urban place with few seasonal and recreational unitsfew seasonal and recreational units.

5 Estimated "normal" vacant units for the Simcoe County Area (3.5% of Total Private Dwellings) 6,300

6 Estimated recreation-based units 2006 17,100(Difference between Total Private Dwellings and Private Dwellings occupied by usual residents,less the estimated "normal" vacant units))

*Note: Unless otherwise specified, all data in Census housing products, and the forecasts shown in the Provincial

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe , are for occupied private dwellings, rather than for unoccupied

private dwellings or dwellings occupied by foreign and/or temporary residents.

HEMSON

APPENDIX H

Estimate of Growth Plan Density in New Residential Communities

HEMSON

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT GROWTH PLAN DENSITIES FOR A SELECTION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

SIMCOE COUNTY AREA

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e R

&M

Hom

es-E

vere

ttPa

rt o

f Lot

s 31

& 3

2 C

once

ssio

n 7

Mun

icip

ality

and

Com

mun

ity

Adj

ala-

Toso

ront

ioN

ew T

ecum

seth

Dev

elop

men

t or A

ppro

val S

tatu

s N

/AN

/A

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea51

.5ha

127.

3ac

res

28.4

ha70

.3ac

res

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n 1.

23.

00.

00.

0(w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

50.3

ha12

4.3

acre

s28

.4ha

70.3

acre

s

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

4.

410

.70.

00.

1

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.4

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

0.1

0.3

0.0

0.0

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

45.8

ha11

3.0

acre

s10

0%28

.2ha

69.8

acre

s10

0%

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

2.6

6.5

6%0.

00.

00%

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

0.0

0.0

0%1.

43.

45%

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

1.5

3.8

3%0.

00.

00%

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

2.5

6.3

6%0.

00.

00%

Loca

l Roa

ds10

.024

.722

%6.

315

.622

%

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

291

h71

863

%20

5h

507

73%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)29

.1ha

71.8

acre

s63

%20

.5ha

50.7

acre

s73

%

Tota

l Uni

ts44

1.0

units

774.

0un

its

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)15

.2un

its/h

a6.

1un

its/a

cre

37.7

units

/ha

15.3

units

/acr

e

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

9.6

units

/ha

3.9

units

/acr

e27

.4un

its/h

a11

.1un

its/a

cre

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

8.8

units

/ha

3.5

units

/acr

e27

.2un

its/h

a11

.0un

its/a

cre

Che

ck51

.50.

028

.40.

0

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

Sin

gle

Det

ache

d26

13.

0679

9

312

3.02

942

S

emi D

etac

hed

180

3.35

603

0

2.63

-

Row

hou

se

2.33

-

512.

512

8

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t 2.

11-

41

11.

7873

2

Tota

l 44

13.

181,

402

774

2.33

1,80

1

C

heck

from

Abo

ve

-

-

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

on10

,082

26,1

41W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t 57

599

5R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

5.70

%3.

81%

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tio80

69ap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

1.54

0C

over

age

25%

25%

Con

vers

ion

to s

quar

e m

etre

s of

bui

ldin

g sp

ace

3,85

00

Are

a pe

r Em

ploy

ee (m

2 )40

40E

stim

ated

Com

mer

cial

Em

ploy

men

t96

0

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

00

Cov

erag

e30

%30

%C

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

e0

0A

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

4040

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t0

0

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s17

669

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

1,57

81,

870

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

31G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

66

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Part

of N

orth

Hal

f of L

ot 1

3, C

once

ssio

n 6

Bro

okfie

ld H

omes

(Ont

ario

) Lim

ited

BW

GB

WG

N/A

N/A

27.5

ha68

.1ac

res

83.5

ha20

6.3

acre

s

0.0

0.0

7.5

18.5

27.5

ha68

.1ac

res

76.0

ha18

7.7

acre

s

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.8

14.3

1.3

3.1

21.8

ha53

.8ac

res

100%

74.7

ha18

4.5

acre

s10

0%

1.1

2.7

5%3.

99.

65%

1.3

3.1

6%5.

012

.47%

1.6

3.9

7%2.

56.

23%

2.3

5.8

11%

0.0

0.0

0%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

4.6

11.3

21%

19.7

48.6

26%

109

h26

950

%43

6h

107

658

%N

et R

esid

entia

l Are

a (N

RA)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

10.9

ha26

.9ac

res

50%

43.6

ha10

7.6

acre

s58

%

180.

0un

its99

6.0

units

16.5

units

/ha

6.7

units

/acr

e22

.9un

its/h

a9.

3un

its/a

cre

8.3

units

/ha

3.3

units

/acr

e13

.3un

its/h

a5.

4un

its/a

cre

6.5

units

/ha

2.6

units

/acr

e13

.1un

its/h

a5.

3un

its/a

cre

27.5

0.0

83.5

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

180

3.35

603

98

43.

353,

296

03.

36-

12

3.36

40

0

2.3

-

02.

3-

0

2.06

-

02.

06-

180

3.35

603

99

63.

353,

337

-

-

22,2

2822

,228

900

900

4.05

%4.

05%

2413

5

2.33

90

25%

25%

5,84

80

4040

146

0

23

30%

30%

4,70

17,

560

4040

118

189

288

324

891

3,66

1

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

32G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

48

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Wes

tbro

okPa

rt o

f the

Nor

th H

alf o

f Lot

21

Con

cess

ion

7B

WG

Inni

sfil

N/A

N/A

57.4

ha14

1.9

acre

s17

.5ha

43.3

acre

s

7.1

17.6

0.0

0.0

50.3

ha12

4.3

acre

s17

.5ha

43.3

acre

s

0.1

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

50.2

ha12

4.0

acre

s10

0%17

.2ha

42.5

acre

s10

0%

4.1

10.1

8%0.

00.

00%

1.3

3.1

3%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.2

0.4

0%0.

82.

15%

12.8

31.7

26%

4.6

11.4

27%

319

h78

763

%11

8h

291

68%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

31.9

ha78

.7ac

res

63%

11.8

ha29

.1ac

res

68%

765.

0un

its22

4.0

units

24.0

units

/ha

9.7

units

/acr

e19

.0un

its/h

a7.

7un

its/a

cre

15.2

units

/ha

6.2

units

/acr

e13

.0un

its/h

a5.

3un

its/a

cre

15.2

units

/ha

6.2

units

/acr

e12

.8un

its/h

a5.

2un

its/a

cre

57.4

0.0

17.5

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

765

3.35

2,56

3

20

42.

8357

7

03.

36-

0

2.43

-

02.

3-

20

2.92

58

0

2.06

-

01.

64-

765

3.35

2,56

3

22

42.

8463

6

-

-

22,2

2828

,666

900

1075

4.05

%3.

75%

104

24

00

25%

25%

00

4040

00

00

30%

30%

00

4040

00

104

24

2,66

766

0

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

53G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

38

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Blo

ck D

and

Par

t of B

lock

s B

and

C P

lan

1071

Essa

Dev

elop

men

ts -

Phas

e 1

Inni

sfil

Ess

a D

evel

opm

ents

- P

hase

1N

/AN

/A

3.1

ha7.

6ac

res

31.1

ha76

.9ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.1

ha7.

6ac

res

31.1

ha76

.9ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

3.1

ha7.

6ac

res

100%

30.8

ha76

.1ac

res

100%

0.0

0.0

0%2.

97.

29%

0.0

0.0

0%4.

410

.814

%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

10%

0.7

1.7

22%

6.8

16.8

22%

24

h5

978

%16

7h

412

54%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

2.4

ha5.

9ac

res

78%

16.7

ha41

.2ac

res

54%

30.0

units

350.

0un

its

12.6

units

/ha

5.1

units

/acr

e21

.0un

its/h

a8.

5un

its/a

cre

9.8

units

/ha

4.0

units

/acr

e11

.4un

its/h

a4.

6un

its/a

cre

9.8

units

/ha

4.0

units

/acr

e11

.2un

its/h

a4.

6un

its/a

cre

3.1

0.0

31.1

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

302.

8385

178

2.98

530

0

2.43

-

118

3.47

409

0

2.92

-

543.

1717

1

01.

64-

0

1.85

-

302.

8385

350

3.17

1,11

1

-

-

28,6

6616

,808

1075

610

3.75

%3.

63%

340

00

25%

25%

00

4040

00

00

30%

30%

00

4040

00

340

881,

151

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

29G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

37

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

East

Hal

f of L

ot 3

1 C

once

ssio

n 4

Red

line

Rev

isio

n Pl

anE

ssa

Ess

aN

/AN

/A

22.0

ha54

.3ac

res

37.8

ha93

.3ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

22.0

ha54

.3ac

res

37.7

ha93

.3ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.6

1.5

0.0

0.0

21.3

ha52

.6ac

res

100%

37.7

ha93

.3ac

res

100%

2.0

4.9

9%1.

53.

84%

1.0

2.5

5%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

6.4

15.9

30%

11.7

28.9

31%

3.4

8.3

16%

6.5

16.0

17%

85

h21

140

%18

1h

447

48%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

8.5

ha21

.1ac

res

40%

18.1

ha44

.7ac

res

48%

162.

0un

its36

9.0

units

19.0

units

/ha

7.7

units

/acr

e20

.4un

its/h

a8.

3un

its/a

cre

7.6

units

/ha

3.1

units

/acr

e9.

8un

its/h

a4.

0un

its/a

cre

7.4

units

/ha

3.0

units

/acr

e9.

8un

its/h

a4.

0un

its/a

cre

22.0

0.0

37.8

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

162

2.98

483

18

12.

9853

9

03.

47-

11

23.

4738

9

03.

17-

76

3.17

241

0

1.85

-

01.

85-

162

2.98

483

36

93.

171,

169

-

-

16,8

0816

,808

610

610

3.63

%3.

63%

1842

00

25%

25%

00

4040

00

00

30%

30%

00

4040

00

1842

500

1,21

1

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

23G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

32

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Sout

h Si

mco

e Pa

rt o

f Sou

th H

alf L

ot 2

7 C

once

ssio

n 2

Tota

l of S

elec

tion

of P

lans

C

lear

view

N/A

359.

8ha

889.

1ac

res

17.6

ha43

.4ac

res

15.8

39.1

3.4

8.4

344.

0ha

850.

0ac

res

14.1

ha35

.0ac

res

4.6

11.3

0.1

0.3

0.6

1.5

0.1

0.2

8.1

20.0

0.0

0.0

330.

7ha

817.

2ac

res

100%

13.9

ha34

.5ac

res

100%

18.1

44.7

5%0.

71.

75%

14.3

35.4

4%0.

61.

54%

4.1

10.1

1%0.

00.

00%

3.9

9.6

1%2.

25.

516

%

21.7

53.6

7%0.

00.

00%

75.3

186.

023

%3.

17.

622

%

193

4h

477

858

%7

4h

182

53%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

193.

4ha

477.

8ac

res

58%

7.4

ha18

.2ac

res

53%

4,29

1.0

units

161.

0un

its

22.2

units

/ha

9.0

units

/acr

e21

.9un

its/h

a8.

8un

its/a

cre

13.0

units

/ha

5.3

units

/acr

e11

.5un

its/h

a4.

7un

its/a

cre

12.5

units

/ha

5.0

units

/acr

e11

.4un

its/h

a4.

6un

its/a

cre

359.

80.

017

.60.

0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

3,25

710

,418

100

2.87

287

42

21,

441

02.

71-

20

159

861

2.35

143

41

173

20

1.86

-

4,29

13.

113

,189

161

2.67

430

-

13,7

96 925

6.70

%W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t 53

929

2.22

25%

5,55

0 40C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

242

139 0

30% 0 40

Inst

itutio

nal E

mpl

oym

ent

307

0

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t 1,

088

168

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

14

,277

598

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

41.5

0G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

42

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Gra

nd C

lear

view

Est

ates

Part

of L

ot 2

3 C

once

ssio

n 2

Cle

arvi

ewC

lear

view

N/A

N/A

72.6

ha17

9.4

acre

s13

.5ha

33.3

acre

s

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

72.6

ha17

9.4

acre

s13

.5ha

33.3

acre

s

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.7

2.4

5.9

19.4

47.9

0.2

0.4

52.9

ha13

0.7

acre

s10

0%10

.9ha

26.8

acre

s10

0%

3.0

7.5

6%0.

82.

08%

2.3

5.6

4%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

16.8

41.4

32%

1.0

2.5

9%

308

h76

158

%9

0h

223

83%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

30.8

ha76

.1ac

res

58%

9.0

ha22

.3ac

res

83%

1,05

6.0

units

114.

0un

its

34.3

units

/ha

13.9

units

/acr

e12

.6un

its/h

a5.

1un

its/a

cre

20.0

units

/ha

8.1

units

/acr

e10

.5un

its/h

a4.

2un

its/a

cre

14.5

units

/ha

5.9

units

/acr

e8.

5un

its/h

a3.

4un

its/a

cre

72.6

0.0

13.5

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

294

2.87

844

11

42.

8732

7

142

2.71

385

0

2.71

-

554

2.35

1,30

2

0

2.35

-

661.

8612

3

01.

86-

1056

2.51

2,65

3

11

42.

8732

7

-

-

13,7

9613

,796

925

925

6.70

%6.

70%

178

22

00

25%

25%

00

4040

00

00

30%

30%

00

4040

00

178

22

2,83

134

9

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

39G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

26

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Part

of L

ot 4

1 C

once

ssio

n 8

Tepc

o H

oldi

ngs

Col

lingw

ood

Col

lingw

ood

N/A

App

rove

d

25.1

ha62

.0ac

res

28.6

ha70

.7ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.1

ha62

.0ac

res

28.6

ha70

.7ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.1

ha62

.0ac

res

100%

28.2

ha69

.7ac

res

100%

1.4

3.4

5%1.

53.

65%

1.4

3.4

6%1.

43.

65%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.2

0.5

1%0.

00.

00%

2.8

7.0

11%

0.0

0.0

0%

3.9

9.7

16%

6.4

15.9

23%

154

h38

061

%18

9h

467

67%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

15.4

ha38

.0ac

res

61%

18.9

ha46

.7ac

res

67%

419.

0un

its37

4.0

units

27.2

units

/ha

11.0

units

/acr

e19

.8un

its/h

a8.

0un

its/a

cre

16.7

units

/ha

6.8

units

/acr

e13

.3un

its/h

a5.

4un

its/a

cre

16.7

units

/ha

6.8

units

/acr

e13

.1un

its/h

a5.

3un

its/a

cre

25.1

0.0

28.6

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

139

2.63

366

37

42.

6398

4

02.

96-

0

2.96

-

02.

35-

0

2.35

-

280

1.57

440

0

1.57

-

419

1.92

805

37

42.

6398

4

-

-

16,0

3916

,039

505

505

3.15

%3.

15%

2531

0.2

025

%25

%50

00

4040

130

00

30%

30%

00

4040

00

3831

843

1,01

5

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

34G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

35

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Part

of N

Lot

44

& S

Lot

45

Con

cess

ion

11W

asag

a B

each

Vill

age

Col

lingw

ood

Was

aga

Bea

chN

/AN

/A

8.5

ha20

.9ac

res

20.4

ha50

.3ac

res

0.0

0.0

1.5

3.6

8.5

ha20

.9ac

res

18.9

ha46

.7ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.8

2.1

8.5

ha20

.9ac

res

100%

17.8

ha44

.0ac

res

100%

0.0

0.0

0%1.

12.

66%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%1.

23.

07%

2.2

5.5

26%

3.8

9.4

21%

62

h15

474

%11

7h

290

66%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

6.2

ha15

.4ac

res

74%

11.7

ha29

.0ac

res

66%

59.0

units

195.

0un

its

9.5

units

/ha

3.8

units

/acr

e16

.6un

its/h

a6.

7un

its/a

cre

7.0

units

/ha

2.8

units

/acr

e10

.9un

its/h

a4.

4un

its/a

cre

7.0

units

/ha

2.8

units

/acr

e10

.3un

its/h

a4.

2un

its/a

cre

8.5

0.0

20.4

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

592.

6315

5

195

2.4

468

0

2.96

-

02.

48-

0

2.35

-

02.

29-

0

1.57

-

02.

02-

592.

6315

5

195

2.40

468

-

-

16,0

3912

,419

505

380

3.15

%3.

06%

514

00

25%

25%

00

4040

00

00

30%

30%

00

4040

00

514

160

482

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

19G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

26

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Ansl

ey G

rove

Sunn

idal

e Tr

ails

Com

mun

ityW

asag

a B

each

Was

aga

Bea

chA

ppro

ved

N/A

2.6

ha6.

4ac

res

59.5

ha14

7.0

acre

s

0.0

0.0

9.9

24.6

2.6

ha6.

4ac

res

49.6

ha12

2.5

acre

s

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.0

0.0

1.0

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.6

2.6

ha6.

4ac

res

100%

48.3

ha11

9.3

acre

s10

0%

0.3

0.6

10%

1.6

4.0

3%

0.2

0.5

8%2.

56.

25%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%2.

04.

94%

0.2

0.4

7%0.

00.

00%

0.6

1.4

21%

12.2

30.2

25%

14

h3

453

%30

0h

740

62%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

1.4

ha3.

4ac

res

53%

30.0

ha74

.0ac

res

62%

22.0

units

557.

0un

its

15.9

units

/ha

6.4

units

/acr

e18

.6un

its/h

a7.

5un

its/a

cre

8.5

units

/ha

3.4

units

/acr

e11

.5un

its/h

a4.

7un

its/a

cre

8.5

units

/ha

3.4

units

/acr

e11

.2un

its/h

a4.

5un

its/a

cre

2.6

0.0

59.5

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

222.

453

430

2.4

1,03

2

0

2.48

-

442.

4810

9

02.

29-

36

2.29

82

0

2.02

-

472.

0295

222.

4053

557

2.37

1,31

9

-

-

12,4

1912

,419

380

380

3.06

%3.

06%

240

01.

9925

%25

%0

4,97

540

400

124

01

30%

30%

01,

950

4040

049

221

3

541,

532

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

21G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

31

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

W H

alf L

ot 1

1, C

once

ssio

n 5

Nor

thw

est H

alf o

f Lot

1, C

once

ssio

n 1

Oro

-Med

onte

Est

ate

Res

iden

tial

Sev

ern

Est

ate

Res

iden

tial

N/A

App

rove

d

9.0

ha22

.3ac

res

14.2

ha35

.2ac

res

1.0

2.5

0.0

0.0

8.0

ha19

.8ac

res

14.2

ha35

.2ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.0

ha19

.8ac

res

100%

14.1

ha34

.7ac

res

100%

1.1

2.7

14%

0.4

1.0

3%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.1

1%0.

10.

21%

0.7

1.7

9%1.

33.

29%

61

h15

277

%12

3h

303

87%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

6.1

ha15

.2ac

res

77%

12.3

ha30

.3ac

res

87%

15.0

units

27.0

units

2.4

units

/ha

1.0

units

/acr

e2.

2un

its/h

a0.

9un

its/a

cre

1.9

units

/ha

0.8

units

/acr

e1.

9un

its/h

a0.

8un

its/a

cre

1.9

units

/ha

0.8

units

/acr

e1.

9un

its/h

a0.

8un

its/a

cre

9.0

0.0

14.2

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

152.

7742

272.

6872

03

-

02.

71-

0

2.7

-

02.

15-

0

2.03

-

01.

96-

152.

7742

272.

6872

-

-

18,3

1511

,135

1195

610

6.52

%5.

48%

34

00

25%

25%

00

4040

00

00

30%

30%

00

4040

00

34

4476

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

6G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

5

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Part

of L

ots

18 &

19,

Con

cess

ion

3C

opel

and

Woo

dsTa

yTi

nyE

stat

e R

esid

entia

l N

/AN

/A

13.7

ha33

.8ac

res

17.5

ha43

.2ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

13.7

ha33

.8ac

res

17.5

ha43

.2ac

res

1.0

2.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.0

0.0

12.6

ha31

.1ac

res

100%

17.5

ha43

.2ac

res

100%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

0.0

0.0

0%5.

513

.631

%

2.9

7.1

23%

1.0

2.6

6%

97

h24

077

%10

9h

270

63%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

9.7

ha24

.0ac

res

77%

10.9

ha27

.0ac

res

63%

145.

0un

its19

.0un

its

14.9

units

/ha

6.0

units

/acr

e1.

7un

its/h

a0.

7un

its/a

cre

11.5

units

/ha

4.7

units

/acr

e1.

1un

its/h

a0.

4un

its/a

cre

10.6

units

/ha

4.3

units

/acr

e1.

1un

its/h

a0.

4un

its/a

cre

13.7

0.0

17.5

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

145

2.6

377

19

2.55

48

0

2.3

-

02.

3-

0

2.5

-

02.

5-

0

2.18

-

02.

18-

145

2.60

377

19

2.55

48

-

-

9,16

29,

035

405

475

4.42

%5.

26%

173

00

25%

25%

00

4040

00

00

30%

30%

00

4040

00

173

394

51

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

29G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

3

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Bay

port

Vill

age

Bel

lisle

Hei

ghts

Mid

land

Pen

etan

guis

hene

N/A

N/A

24.3

ha60

.0ac

res

26.4

ha65

.2ac

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

24.3

ha60

.0ac

res

26.4

ha65

.2ac

res

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.3

6.3

15.6

24.1

ha59

.5ac

res

100%

20.1

ha49

.5ac

res

100%

0.8

1.9

3%0.

00.

00%

1.9

4.6

8%1.

33.

26%

0.0

0.0

0%0.

00.

00%

1.7

4.2

7%0.

00.

00%

1.0

2.6

4%0.

10.

10%

2.9

7.1

12%

5.1

12.7

26%

158

h39

166

%13

6h

335

68%

Net

Res

iden

tial A

rea

(NR

A)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

15.8

ha39

.1ac

res

66%

13.6

ha33

.5ac

res

68%

567.

0un

its18

8.0

units

35.8

units

/ha

14.5

units

/acr

e13

.9un

its/h

a5.

6un

its/a

cre

23.5

units

/ha

9.5

units

/acr

e9.

4un

its/h

a3.

8un

its/a

cre

23.4

units

/ha

9.5

units

/acr

e7.

1un

its/h

a2.

9un

its/a

cre

24.3

0.0

26.4

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

602.

615

6

188

2.79

525

0

2.4

-

02.

83-

17

71.

8632

9

01.

89-

33

01.

9263

4

01.

74-

567

1.97

1,11

9

18

82.

7952

5

-

-

16,2

148,

316

365

230

2.25

%2.

77%

2515

1.26

025

%25

%3,

150

040

4079

0

10

30%

30%

1,62

00

4040

410

144

15

1,26

353

9

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

52G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

20

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Dra

ft Pl

an o

f Sub

divi

sion

Par

t of L

ot 8

Cle

arvi

ewN

/A

39.1

ha96

.6ac

res

0.0

0.0

39.1

ha96

.6ac

res

3.8

9.5

0.0

0.0

1.2

3.0

34.0

ha84

.1ac

res

100%

2.2

5.5

7%

2.5

6.3

7%

0.0

0.0

0%

0.0

0.0

0%

0.7

1.7

2%

3.2

7.9

9%

254

h62

775

%N

et R

esid

entia

l Are

a (N

RA)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

25.4

ha62

.7ac

res

75%

498.

0un

its

19.6

units

/ha

7.9

units

/acr

e

14.6

units

/ha

5.9

units

/acr

e

12.7

units

/ha

5.2

units

/acr

e

39.1

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n 10

82.

8731

0

02.

71-

96

2.35

226

29

41.

8654

7

498

2.17

1,08

2

-

13,7

96 925

6.70

% 73 025

% 0 40 0 030

% 0 40 0 73

1,15

5

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty

30

HE

MSO

N

Sim

coe

Cou

nty

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty A

naly

sis

Sub

divi

sion

Nam

e M

unic

ipal

ity a

nd C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent o

r App

rova

l Sta

tus

Tota

l Lan

d Ar

ea

Non

-dev

elop

able

Are

a as

Per

Gro

wth

Pla

n (w

etla

nds,

coa

stal

wet

land

s, w

oodl

ands

, va

lleyl

ands

, AN

SIs

, and

wild

life

and

or fi

sh)

Gro

wth

Pla

nAr

ea (G

PA)

Oth

er N

on-D

evel

opab

le A

reas

(Hyd

ro c

orrid

or, p

ipel

ine

ease

men

ts,

road

righ

ts o

f way

, day

light

ing

trian

gles

, roa

d se

tbac

ks, s

anita

ry tr

eatm

ent a

rea,

pum

p st

atio

n)

Oth

er N

on-N

eigh

bour

hood

Are

as

(Inst

itutio

nal u

ses,

maj

or c

omm

erci

al c

entre

s,

arte

rial r

oads

, sec

onda

ry s

choo

ls)

Futu

re R

esid

entia

l, C

omm

erci

al o

r Oth

er D

evel

opm

ent

Gro

ss R

esid

entia

l Are

a (G

RA)

Sto

rm W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

onds

Par

ks a

nd P

arke

ttes

Nei

ghbo

urho

od S

choo

ls

Nei

ghbo

urho

od C

omm

erci

al U

ses

Oth

er O

pen

Spa

ce, B

uffe

rs, E

ntry

Fea

ture

s, e

tc.

Loca

l Roa

ds

NtR

idti

lA(N

RA)

Nor

th S

imco

e C

ount

y To

tal S

imco

e C

ount

y Ar

ea

Tota

l of S

elec

tion

of P

lans

To

tal o

f Sel

ectio

n of

Pla

ns

392.

4ha

969.

6ac

res

752.

2ha

1,85

8.7

acre

s

15.8

39.1

31.7

78.2

376.

693

0.5

720.

61,

780.

5

5.3

13.0

9.8

24.3

4.5

11.1

5.1

12.6

28.4

70.2

36.5

90.2

338.

4ha

836.

3ac

res

100%

669.

2ha

1,65

3.5

acre

s10

0%

14.8

36.6

4%32

.981

.35%

14.1

34.9

4%28

.570

.34%

0.0

0.0

0%4.

110

.11%

6.1

15.1

2%10

.024

.71%

11.7

28.8

3%33

.482

.45%

67.1

165.

820

%14

2.4

351.

821

%

224

6h

555

066

%41

80

h1

032

862

%N

et R

esid

entia

l Are

a (N

RA)

Tota

l Uni

ts

Net

Den

sity

(uni

ts d

ivid

ed N

RA

)

Gro

ss D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

GR

A)

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (u

nits

div

ided

by

DG

A)

Che

ck

Uni

t Mix

and

Pop

ulat

ion

Estim

ate

Sin

gle

Det

ache

dS

emi D

etac

hed

Row

hou

se

Apa

rtmen

t Uni

t

Tota

l C

heck

from

Abo

ve

Estim

ate

of W

ork

at H

ome

2001

Pop

ulat

onW

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t R

atio

of P

opul

atio

n to

Wor

k at

Hom

e E

mpl

oym

ent

Est

imat

ed W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t (co

mm

unity

-wid

e ra

tioap

plie

d to

sub

divi

sion

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ate)

Estim

ate

of C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Com

mer

cial

Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Estim

ate

of In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t In

stitu

tiona

l Lan

d A

rea

(ha)

Cov

erag

eC

onve

rsio

n to

squ

are

met

res

of b

uild

ing

spac

eA

rea

per E

mpl

oyee

(m2 )

Est

imat

ed In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t

Tota

l Wor

k at

Hom

e, C

omm

erci

al a

nd In

situ

tiona

l Job

s

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

Gro

wth

Pla

n D

ensi

ty (P

eopl

e an

d Jo

bs D

ivid

ed b

y G

PA)

224.

6ha

555.

0ac

res

66%

418.

0ha

1,03

2.8

acre

s62

%

4,41

6.0

units

8,70

7.0

units

19.7

units

/ha

8.0

units

/acr

e20

.8un

its/h

a8.

4un

its/a

cre

13.0

units

/ha

5.3

units

/acr

e13

.0un

its/h

a5.

3un

its/a

cre

11.7

units

/ha

4.7

units

/acr

e12

.1un

its/h

a4.

9un

its/a

cre

392.

40.

075

2.2

0.0

Uni

ts

PPU

Popu

latio

n U

nits

PP

UPo

pula

tion

2,28

96,

045

5,54

63.

016

,463

186

494

608

3.2

1,93

592

42,

083

1,12

52.

42,

681

1,01

71,

838

1,42

81.

82,

569

4,41

62.

3710

,459

8,70

72.

723

,648

n/a

n/a

4.33

%W

ork

at H

ome

Em

ploy

men

t 48

41,

023 10

25%

23,8

73 40C

omm

erci

al E

mpl

oym

ent

354

597 5

30%

15,8

31 40In

stitu

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t 89

396

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t 92

82,

016

Tota

l Peo

ple

and

Jobs

11

,387

25,6

64G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

G

row

th P

lan

Den

sity

30

All P

lans

36

HEMSON

APPENDIX I

Estimate of County-wide Density and Intensification Targets

HEMSON

Growth Plan Intensification in Simcoe County Planning Area

Larger and OlderCommunities

RuralCommunities

MunicipalSimcoe County

Barrieand Orillia

SimcoeCounty Area

Unit Growth 2016-2031 27,900 20,200 48,100 12,200 60,300

Share Intensification 40.0% 20.0% 31.6% 40.0% 33.3%

Units Through Intensification 11,100 4,100 15,200 4,900 20,100

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2008

Note: The Census period beginning mid-2016 is used as the basis for the estimate. It counts completed units which should approximatebuilding permit issuance beginning in late 2015, the time the Growth Plan intensification rule takes effect. For larger and oldercommunities, the Growth Plan’s 40% intensification is applied. For rural communities, 20% is applied, based on observed patternsof development in Ontario urban communities.

Growth Plan Greenfield Density Target in Simcoe County Planning Area

Larger and OlderCommunities

RuralCommunities

Municipal SimcoeCounty

Barrieand Orillia

Simcoe CountyArea

Unit Growth 2006-2031 40,600 32,900 73,500 30,000 103,500

Share Greenfield 2006-2016Share Greenfield 2016-2031

Total Greenfield Units

80%60%

26,900

80%80%

26,300

80%68%

53,200

80%60% Orillia, 0% Barrie

16,100

80%55%

69,300

Population @ 3.0 PPUGreenfield Employment

Total Population & Employment

80,80023,700

104,500

78,9008,900

87,800

159,70032,600

192,200

48,20020,300

68,400

207,90052,800

260,700

Greenfield Density 50.0 32.0 39.8 50.0 42.0

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd., 2008

Note: For large and older communities, Growth Plan 50 residents and jobs combined per ha is applied. For rural communities, 32 residentsand jobs combined is applied. This represents a weighted average of 75% residential and 25% employment land at current county-wide densities, as shown in appendix H for residential and using 20 employees per Growth Plan ha for employment.