GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY UPDATE
HEMSON C o n s u l t i n g L td. 30 St. Patrick Street, Suite 1000 Toronto, ON, M5T 3A3
December 17, 2015 i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The County of Grey has retained Hemson Consulting Ltd. to update the County’s Growth Management Strategy (GMS), 2008. Population, housing and employment forecasts from 2011 to a 2041 horizon have been prepared, along with local allocations of forecast growth to local municipalities within Grey. A review and update to the GMS land supply information was undertaken and recommendations made for updates to the Grey County Official Plan.
Key study findings include:
Grey County has grown modestly over the past decade, with limited population growth and a small decline in employment. Housing growth has been outpacing growth in residents, an outcome of the aging demographic trend. The growth which has been occurring in the County has been unevenly distributed among Grey’s nine local municipalities.
Three forecast scenarios were prepared based on varying assumptions about future levels of in-migration. A low, a reference and a high scenario provide a range on the County’s future growth outlook. The reference scenario represents the most likely outcome for Grey and was endorsed by County staff following consultation with local municipal planning staff.
The GMS update is undertaken within the context of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). An updated PPS came into effect in April, 2014 with a number of strengthened directions and considerations in planning for anticipated growth and development in Grey.
A review and update of the County-wide land supply inventory was undertaken indicating sufficient supply to accommodate forecast growth, County-wide and within each of Grey’s local municipalities. Changes to settlement area boundaries are not being proposed at this time.
The County-wide reference growth forecast is allocated to local municipalities in Grey taking into consideration a range of planning policy, historic growth and recent development trends and land supply and servicing capacities. 2016 to 2036 is highlighted as it represents a twenty-year planning horizon for subsequent updates to the Grey County Official Plan.
HEMSON
ii
Forecast results are summarized below.
Forecast Census Population by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 - 2041 Census Population 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 6,450 6,850 8,130 8,460 8,700 1,610 1.06% Chatsworth 6,440 6,550 6,950 7,080 7,160 530 0.39% Georgian Bluffs 10,400 10,840 11,870 12,140 12,330 1,300 0.57% Grey Highlands 9,520 9,800 10,850 11,090 11,290 1,290 0.62% Hanover 7,490 7,620 8,190 8,370 8,480 750 0.47% Meaford 11,100 11,260 12,310 12,620 12,840 1,360 0.57% Owen Sound 21,690 21,740 23,010 23,520 23,880 1,780 0.39% Southgate 7,190 7,380 8,130 8,330 8,470 950 0.61% West Grey 12,290 12,620 13,510 13,780 13,960 1,160 0.44% Grey County 92,570 94,660 102,950 105,390 107,110 10,730 0.54%
Forecast Total Population by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 - 2041 Total Population (includes Census Net Undercoverage) 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 6,610 7,010 8,320 8,660 8,910 1,650 1.06% Chatsworth 6,590 6,700 7,120 7,250 7,330 550 0.40% Georgian Bluffs 10,650 11,090 12,150 12,430 12,630 1,340 0.57% Grey Highlands 9,750 10,040 11,110 11,360 11,560 1,320 0.62% Hanover 7,670 7,800 8,390 8,570 8,690 770 0.47% Meaford 11,360 11,530 12,600 12,920 13,150 1,390 0.57% Owen Sound 22,200 22,250 23,550 24,080 24,460 1,830 0.40% Southgate 7,360 7,560 8,330 8,530 8,670 970 0.61% West Grey 12,580 12,920 13,830 14,110 14,300 1,190 0.44% Grey County 94,770 96,900 105,400 107,910 109,700 11,010 0.54%
Housing Unit Forecast by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011-2041 Housing Units (Occupied Households) 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 2,850 3,060 3,700 3,850 3,960 790 1.15% Chatsworth 2,480 2,560 2,740 2,780 2,810 220 0.41% Georgian Bluffs 4,100 4,330 4,810 4,890 4,970 560 0.61% Grey Highlands 3,750 3,920 4,410 4,510 4,580 590 0.70% Hanover 3,180 3,270 3,530 3,600 3,650 330 0.48% Meaford 4,640 4,780 5,290 5,410 5,500 630 0.62% Owen Sound 9,610 9,750 10,390 10,580 10,740 830 0.41% Southgate 2,640 2,750 3,050 3,120 3,170 370 0.63% West Grey 4,880 5,090 5,530 5,620 5,700 530 0.50% Grey County 38,130 39,510 43,450 44,360 45,080 4,850 0.58%
HEMSON
iii
Forecast Total Employment by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 - 2041 Total Place of Work Employment 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 4,000 4,170 4,210 4,330 4,500 160 0.19% Chatsworth 1,650 1,710 1,730 1,780 1,850 70 0.20% Georgian Bluffs 3,010 3,170 3,200 3,280 3,430 110 0.17% Grey Highlands 3,780 3,940 3,970 4,080 4,270 140 0.17% Hanover 6,000 6,190 6,230 6,370 6,600 180 0.14% Meaford 3,330 3,420 3,450 3,540 3,690 120 0.17% Owen Sound 15,130 15,500 15,590 15,940 16,500 440 0.14% Southgate 1,980 2,070 2,090 2,160 2,280 90 0.21% West Grey 3,150 3,300 3,340 3,430 3,600 130 0.19% Grey County 42,030 43,470 43,810 44,910 46,720 1,440 0.16%
The results of the updated outlook on seasonal and recreational units is shown below.
Growth Outlook for Seasonal Recreational Units Grey County by Local Municipality, 2016 - 2036 Estimated Seasonal Recreational Units Municipality 2011 2036 Net Change Blue Mountains 3250 4300 1050 Chatsworth 390 440 50 Georgian Bluffs 770 900 130 Grey Highlands 1500 1770 270 Hanover 0 0 0 Meaford 670 760 90 Owen Sound 0 0 0 Southgate 270 310 40 West Grey 580 670 90 Grey County 7430 9150 1720
HEMSON
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. BACKGROUND ...... 1 B. STUDY PURPOSE ...... 3 C. REPORT CONTENTS ...... 3 II RECENT GROWTH HAS BEEN MODEST AND UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT GREY ...... 5 A. RECENT POPULATION GROWTH HAS BEEN MODEST ...... 5 B. GREY’S POPULATION IS AGING ...... 7 C. HOUSING GROWTH OUTPACING POPULATION ...... 8 D. EMPLOYMENT DECLINED OVER RECENT CENSUS PERIOD AMIDST A SHIFTING ECONOMY ...... 12 E. COMPARISON TO 2008 GMS FORECASTS ...... 17 III COUNTY-WIDE FORECASTS INDICATE MODERATE GROWTH TO 2036 ..... 19 A. FORECAST METHOD & ASSUMPTIONS ...... 19 B. COUNTY-WIDE REFERENCE FORECAST RESULTS ...... 23 IV LOCAL ALLOCATION OF FORECAST GROWTH BASED ON POLICY, MARKET DEMAND AND SUPPLY ...... 27 A. PPS (2014) SETS THE FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH ALLOCATIONS AND PLANNING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL ...... 27 B. UPDATED LAND SUPPLY INVENTORY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...... 30 C. CONSULTATION HIGHLIGHTS LOCAL PRIORITIES AND LIMITS TO GROWTH ...... 37 V LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF FORECAST GROWTH ...... 39 A. LOCAL GROWTH ALLOCATIONS ...... 39 B. HOUSEHOLDS ...... 40 C. POPULATION ...... 41 D. EMPLOYMENT ...... 43 E. OUTLOOK FOR SEASONAL UNITS ...... 45 VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 50
HEMSON
List of Tables, Exhibits and Maps
Table 1: Historical Population Growth, County of Grey 2001-2011 pg. 5 Table 2: Historical Census Population by Local Municipality pg. 6 Table 3: Historical Total Population by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2001- 2011 pg. 6 Table 4: Average Persons Per Unit, County of Grey, 2001-2011 pg. 9 Table 5: Historical Occupied Housing Units, County of Grey, 2001-2011 pg. 9 Table 6: Historical Occupied Households by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2001-2011 pg. 10 Table 7: Housing Mix, County of Grey, 2001-2011 pg. 11 Table 8: Housing Mix by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2001 & 2011 pg. 11 Table 9: Historical Total Place-of-Work Employment, County of Grey, 2001- 2011 pg. 12 Table 10: Historical Place of Work Employment by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2001-2011 pg. 14 Table 11: Historical Resident Employment Labour Force, County of Grey, 2001- 2011 pg. 15 Table 12: Historical Resident Employed Labour Force by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2001-2011 pg. 16 Table 13: Out-Commuting by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2011 pg. 17 Table 14: Comparison – 2008 Grey County GMS 2011 Forecasts & 2011 Census Results pg. 18 Table 15: Forecast Census Population, County of Grey, 2011-2041 pg. 24 Table 16: Forecast Population (Including Census Net Undercoverage), County of Grey, 2011-2041 pg. 24 Table 17: Forecast Total Occupied Housing Units, County of Grey, 2011-2041 pg. 26 Table 18: Forecast Total Place of Work Employment, County of Grey, 2011- 2041 pg. 26 Table 19: Residential Building Permits by Local Municipality – All Unit Types, Grey County, 2006-2014 pg. 30
HEMSON
Table 20: Vacant Land Supply – All Residential, Municipal Totals based on County-Wide Official Plan Designations, Grey County, 2012 pg. 32 Table 21: Vacant Land Supply – Commercial, Municipal Totals based on County-Wide Official Plan Designations, Grey County, 2012 pg. 32 Table 22: Vacant Land Supply – Industrial, Municipal Totals based on County- Wide Official Plan Designations, Grey County, 2012 pg. 32 Table 23: Vacant Land Supply Inventory by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2014 pg. 34 Table 24: Vacant Residential Land Supply Capacity by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2014 pg. 35 Table 25: Vacant Industrial Land Supply Capacity by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2014 pg. 36 Table 26: Municipal Shares of County-wide Household Forecast 2016-2036 pg. 40 Table 27: Housing Unit Forecast by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2011- 2041 pg. 41 Table 28: Forecast Census Population by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2011-2041 pg. 42 Table 29: Forecast Total Population by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2011- 2041 pg. 42 Table 30: Forecast Total Employment by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2011-2041 pg.44 Table 31: Forecast Population-Related Employment by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2011-2041 pg.44 Table 32: Forecast Employment Land Employment by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2011-2041 pg.44 Table 33: Forecast Rural-Based Employment by Local Municipality, Grey County, 2011-2041 pg.44 Table 34: Proportion of Total Housing Units Not Occupied by Usual Grey County by Local Municipality, 2001-2011 pg. 47 Table 35: Housing Outlook by Dwelling Characteristics, Grey County by Local Municipality, 2036 pg. 48 Table 36: Growth Outlook for Seasonal Recreational Units, Grey County by Local Municipality, 2016-2036 pg. 48
HEMSON
Exhibit 1: Age Structure, County of Grey, 2006 & 2011 pg. 8 Exhibit 2: Change in Place-of-Work Employment, county of Grey, 2006-2011 pg. 13 Exhibit 3: Historical Migrant Age Structure, County of Grey, 2001-2011 pg. 20 Exhibit 4: Forecast Method Diagram pg. 21 Exhibit 5: Forecast Age Structure, County of Grey, 2011 & 2031 pg. 25
Map 1: County of Grey in a Southern Ontario Context pg. 1 Map 2: Local Municipalities within Grey pg. 2 Map 3: % of Total Private Dwellings Not Occupied by Usual Resident, County of Grey, 2011 pg. 47
HEMSON
1
I INTRODUCTION
The County of Grey (the County) has retained Hemson Consulting Ltd. to update the County’s Growth Management Strategy (GMS), 2008. The project involves the preparation of updated population, housing and employment forecasts from 2011 to a 2041 horizon. It also includes a review and update of the GMS land supply information, allocation of forecast growth to local municipalities in Grey and recommendations for updating the Grey County Official Plan. The GMS update is undertaken within the context of the Ontario planning policy framework, notably the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014.
A. BACKGROUND
Grey is located on the shoreline of Georgian Bay surrounded by Bruce County to the west, Wellington and Dufferin to the south and Simcoe County to the east. Covering more than 4,500 km2, the County is an expansive, largely rural, upper-tier municipality, with extensive agricultural areas, natural amenities and shoreline.
HEMSONHEMSON
2
The County comprises nine lower-tier municipalities including urban and rural communities across 57 settlement areas with varied local demographic, economic and geographic characteristics and a range of servicing capacities, population size, economic function and natural and recreational amenity.
Through the Grey County Official Plan, the County sets out broad policy objectives for managing growth and development across Grey’s diverse communities over the long-term. This includes allocating the projected population, housing and employment growth that is used as a basis for planning County services, in local official plans and a for range of other planning and service delivery initiatives.
HEMSON
3
B. STUDY PURPOSE
The updated GMS will inform updates to the Grey County Official Plan and will help to ensure that the County is adequately planning for future growth and development in a manner consistent with Provincial planning policy.
Key considerations for the GMS update include:
The forecasts which formed the basis for the GMS were in large part based on 2006 Statistics Canada Census information on population and housing and 2001 Census data on employment. The current GMS update is informed by more recent information on demographic and economic conditions, notably the results from the 2011 Census and National Household Survey.
The current update provides an important opportunity to re-evaluate growth prospects in Grey based on the most current available data. The County has experienced slower growth in recent years than was anticipated through the 2008 GMS forecasts, thus an update to understand how the County is currently growing and to realistically assess the future outlook is timely.
The update also provides an important opportunity to evaluate how recent development occurring since the 2008 GMS has changed the County’s designated land supply.
The Province released an updated PPS which took effect on April 30, 2014. Among other matters, the updated PPS provides additional clarity around municipal comprehensive reviews, employment land planning and planning for rural areas. The study is being undertaken within the context of this updated Provincial policy.
The GMS update provides a basis for planning policy that is grounded in a realistic growth outlook responsive to demographic change and an evolving economic base. It will support the County’s planning efforts to achieve healthy and sustainable population and employment growth over the long-term.
C. REPORT CONTENTS
This report examines recent growth and change in the County, provides the results of the updated County-wide growth forecasts and land supply review and presents local
HEMSON
4
allocations of forecast growth to municipalities in Grey. Recommendations are made for updating the Grey County Official Plan consistent with Provincial policy.
Following this introductory section, the balance of this report is divided into five sections:
Section II examines the level and distribution of population, housing and employment growth which has been occurring in Grey over recent Census periods and discusses demographic and economic trends affecting the pattern and pace of growth;
Section III discusses the forecast method and underlying assumptions and presents the results of the County-wide forecasts of population, housing and employment;
Section IV describes the policy context for allocating growth to local municipalities in Grey, examines recent residential development activity, presents the results of the updated land supply inventory and capacity analysis and provides commentary on input received from local municipal and industry stakeholders;
Section V presents the results of the local municipal forecast growth allocation and an outlook on seasonal recreational units; and
Section VI provides summary conclusions and recommendations for updating the Grey County Official Plan to incorporate the results of the GMS update.
HEMSON
5
II RECENT GROWTH HAS BEEN MODEST AND UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT GREY
Grey County has grown modestly over the past decade but with limited population growth and a small decline in employment during the recent recession dominated period. Housing growth has been outpacing growth in residents over the last decade, an outcome of the aging demographic trend and resulting decline in average household size. The growth which has been occurring in the County has been unevenly distributed among Grey’s nine local municipalities. This section discusses recent population, housing and employment growth in the County in the context of broader demographic and economic trends and examines where and how this growth has been experienced throughout Grey.
A. RECENT POPULATION GROWTH HAS BEEN MODEST
Population growth in Grey has slowed over recent Census periods. As shown in Table 1 below, the County added 3,500 residents between 2001 and 2011, growing by 3.9%. Most of this growth occurred between 2001 and 2006; since then Grey has experienced much more modest growth, adding 200 residents over the most recent Census period from 2006 to 2011.
Table 1 Historical Population Growth County of Grey, 2001-2011 Compound Compound Census Total Year Net Change Annual Net Change Annual Population Population* Growth Rate Growth Rate 2001 89,100 -- -- 92,600 -- -- 2006 92,400 3,300 0.7% 95,400 2,800 0.6% 2011 92,600 200 0.0% 94,800 (600) -0.1% 2001-11 3,500 2,200 Source: Statistics Canada. *Includes Census Net Undercoverage Figures are rounded.
Growth in the County has been unevenly distributed among Grey municipalities, with some communities declining in population over the most recent 2006 to 2011 Census
HEMSON
6
period. Tables 2 and 3 below indicate the change in Census and total population by local municipality from 2001 to 2011.
Table 2 Historical Census Population by Local Municipality Grey County, 2001 - 2011 2001-2006 2006-2011 Share of County- Compound Compound Municipality 2001 2006 2011 Net Net wide 01-11 Annual Annual Change Change Growth Growth Rate Growth Rate Blue Mountains 6,120 6,830 6,450 710 2.22% (380) -1.14% 9% Chatsworth 6,280 6,390 6,440 110 0.35% 50 0.16% 5% Georgian Bluffs 10,130 10,510 10,400 380 0.74% (110) -0.21% 8% Grey Highlands 9,200 9,480 9,520 280 0.60% 40 0.08% 9% Hanover 6,870 7,150 7,490 280 0.80% 340 0.93% 18% Meaford 10,380 10,950 11,100 570 1.07% 150 0.27% 21% Owen Sound 21,460 21,750 21,690 290 0.27% (60) -0.06% 7% Southgate 6,910 7,170 7,190 260 0.74% 20 0.06% 8% West Grey 11,740 12,190 12,290 450 0.76% 100 0.16% 16% Grey County 89,100 92,400 92,600 3,300 0.73% 200 0.04% 100% Source: Statistics Canada Census data. Figures are rounded and may not add.
Table 3 Historical Total Population by Local Municipality Grey County, 2001 - 2011 2001-2006 2006-2011 Share of County- Compound Compound Municipality 2001 2006 2011 Net Net wide 01-11 Annual Annual Change Change Growth Growth Rate Growth Rate Blue Mountains 6,360 7,050 6,610 690 2.08% (440) -1.28% 11% Chatsworth 6,530 6,600 6,590 70 0.21% (10) -0.03% 3% Grey Highlands 9,560 9,790 9,750 230 0.48% (40) -0.08% 9% Georgian Bluffs 10,520 10,850 10,650 330 0.62% (200) -0.37% 6% Hanover 7,140 7,380 7,670 240 0.66% 290 0.77% 24% Meaford 10,790 11,300 11,360 510 0.93% 60 0.11% 26% Owen Sound 22,290 22,460 22,200 170 0.15% (260) -0.23% -4% Southgate 7,180 7,400 7,360 220 0.61% (40) -0.11% 8% West Grey 12,200 12,590 12,580 390 0.63% (10) -0.02% 17% Grey County 92,600 95,400 94,800 2,800 0.60% (600) -0.13% 100% Source: Statistics Canada Annual Demographic Statistics. Note: Historical Total Population includes Census Net Undercoverage. Figures are rounded and may not add.
Key observations include:
Most municipalities did continue to experience population growth over both Census periods however with a slowing growth trend.
Hanover, Meaford and West Grey experienced the highest levels and rates of population growth over the ten years from 2001 to 2011 with growth in the
HEMSON
7
more recent 2006 to 2011 period occurring amidst a slowing growth trend and decline in other parts of the County.
Population declined in the municipalities of Owen Sound, Blue Mountains and Georgian Bluffs between 2006 and 2011. Over the ten-year period, Chatsworth and Owen Sound experienced the lowest levels and relative shares of County-wide population growth.
The Town of The Blue Mountains went from being the highest growth municipality between 2001 and 2006 to experiencing the greatest decline in population among Grey municipalities over the more recent 2006 to 2011 period, in part owing to the high prevalence of seasonal and recreational units – the occupancy pattern of these types of units tend to shift back and forth between seasonal and permanent over time.
Georgian Bluffs also went from one of the higher growth municipalities to declining in population more recently.
B. GREY’S POPULATION IS AGING
During the more recent slower growth period, the County’s population continued to age, a trend occurring throughout Ontario, in particular in areas outside of the major urban centres. The aging demographic trend is anticipated to continue and will have important implications for planning in Grey County.
The shift in the County’s age structure which occurred between 2006 and 2011 is shown in Exhibit 1 on the following page.
HEMSON
8
Exhibit 1: Age Structure, County of Grey, 2006 & 2011
HISTORICAL AGE STRUCTURE COUNTY OF GREY, 2006 & 2011
90+ 2006 85 - 89 2011 80 - 84 MALE FEMALE
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40 - 44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5 - 9
0 - 4
5%4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Statistics Canada 2006 & 2011 Census.
The most striking aspect of the graph is the pronounced reduction in the number of people in their 20’s and 30’s relative to those older and younger. This is the result of the combined effect of the “baby bust” generation and the continued out-migration of young adults. Over the long-term, the aging of the baby boom “bulge” in the population and the continued out-migration of young adults will combine to rapidly increase the median age of Grey residents.
C. HOUSING GROWTH OUTPACING POPULATION
Housing growth in Grey County has outpaced growth in population over the last Census period, owing to the aging population and resulting decline in average household size. An older population forms more households because they have fewer children and are more likely to be divorced or widowed (where women still typically live longer than their male spouses). The result is a greater proportion of “empty- nester” households and of single-person households. Therefore, housing growth out-
HEMSON
9
paces growth in population. Going forward, it is expected that any growth in new units would accommodate proportionally less population overall. The recent decline in persons per unit in Grey County is shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4 Average Persons Per Unit County of Grey, 2001-2011 2001 2.46 2006 2.46 2011 2.41
The decline in average household size means that fewer people will be housed in the County’s existing housing base and more units will be required to accommodate less future population.
As shown in Table 5 below, the County added 800 households between 2006 and 2011, while growing by a modest 200 residents over the same time frame. While still outpacing growth in population, growth in households also slowed somewhat between 2006 and 2011 in comparison with the level of growth that occurred during the 2001 to 2006 period. Table 5 Historical Occupied Housing Units County of Grey , 2001 - 2011 Compound Annual Year Households Net Change Growth Rate
2001 35,300 -- -- 2006 37,200 1,900 1.1% 2011 38,000 800 0.4% Source: Statistics Canada. Figures are rounded.
Although each growing at different rates over the two Census periods, the overall shares of housing growth which occurred between 2001 and 2011 in the County were relatively balanced among Grey’s local municipalities, as shown in Table 6.
HEMSON
10
Table 6 Historical Occupied Households by Local Municipality Grey County, 2001-2011 Occupied Households 2001-2006 2006-2011 Share of 01-11 Compound Compound Municipality Net Net County-wide 2001 2006 2011 Annual Annual Change Change Growth Growth Rate Growth Rate Blue Mountains 2,600 2,950 2,850 350 2.56% (100) -0.69% 9% Chatsworth 2,230 2,380 2,480 150 1.31% 100 0.83% 9% Georgian Bluffs 3,740 4,040 4,100 300 1.56% 60 0.30% 13% Grey Highlands 3,560 3,700 3,750 140 0.77% 50 0.27% 7% Hanover 2,920 3,040 3,180 120 0.81% 140 0.90% 10% Meaford 4,200 4,450 4,640 250 1.16% 190 0.84% 16% Owen Sound 9,200 9,380 9,610 180 0.39% 230 0.49% 15% Southgate 2,430 2,580 2,640 150 1.21% 60 0.46% 8% West Grey 4,520 4,740 4,880 220 0.96% 140 0.58% 13% Grey County 35,300 37,200 38,000 1,900 1.05% 800 0.43% 100% Source: Statistics Canada Census data. Figures are rounded and may not add.
Key observations include:
All local municipalities with the exception of the Town of The Blue Mountains added households over both Census periods between 2001 and 2011.
The Blue Mountains, despite declining in households over the 2006 to 2011 period, still accounted for nearly 10% of the County-wide household growth over the Census decade as well as being the highest growth municipality in terms of total housing units.
The highest rates of household growth in the most recent Census period were in the municipalities of Hanover, Meaford and Chatsworth.
Taken together, the municipalities of Owen Sound, West Grey, Meaford and Georgian Bluffs accounted for roughly 60% of the County’s growth in households over the 2001 to 2011 period, with the balance split evenly among the County’s other local municipalities.
The municipalities of Georgian Bluffs and Owen Sound continued to add households between 2006 and 2011 despite declining in population, indicative of an aging population.
1. Housing Mix
The existing housing stock as well as new housing growth by type in the County has been characterized by predominance in single detached dwellings, as shown in Table
HEMSON
11
7 below. The housing unit mix has remained relatively constant since 2001 at roughly 79% single family dwellings, 2% semi-detached units, 4% row houses and 15% apartments.
Table 7 Housing Mix County of Grey, 2001-2011 Year Single Semi-detached Rowhouse Apartment 2001 79% 2% 3% 16% 2006 79% 2% 3% 16% 2011 79% 2% 4% 15%
Again, there is variation at the local level in response to the unique settlement area characteristics of communities within Grey. The housing mix by local municipality is shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8 Housing Mix by Local Municipality Grey County, 2001 & 2011 2001 2011 Municipality Single Semis Rows Apt Single Semis Rows Apt Blue Mountains 87% 1% 5% 8% 84% 2% 7% 6% Chatsworth95%1%0%4%96%1%0%2% Georgian Bluffs 97% 1% 0% 2% 97% 0% 0% 2% Grey Highlands 92% 1% 1% 6% 93% 1% 1% 5% Hanover 65% 2% 2% 31% 66% 3% 7% 25% Meaford 84% 2% 2% 12% 84% 1% 5% 10% Owen Sound 53% 5% 6% 36% 52% 4% 7% 37% Southgate 93% 1% 0% 5% 94% 0% 0% 6% West Grey91%1%2%9%91%1%2%6% Grey County79%2%3%16%79%2%4%15% Source: Statistics Canada Census data.
As shown, the greatest proportions of higher density housing forms are in the municipalities of Owen Sound and Hanover, reflecting the more urban nature of these communities.
Conversely, the communities of West Grey, Grey Highlands, Southgate, Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs exhibit very high levels of single detached dwellings as a component of total housing stock.
HEMSON
12
D. EMPLOYMENT DECLINED OVER RECENT CENSUS PERIOD AMIDST A SHIFTING ECONOMY
While Grey continued to add residents and households over the two Census periods since 2001, employment in the County has been more variable1. As shown in Table 9, between 2001 and 2006, the County added roughly 3,400 jobs, growing in total Place of Work employment by 9%. Since then, the job base in Grey has declined, with the County losing 900 jobs between 2006 and 2011.
Similar declines in employment have been experienced in many Ontario communities, in particular those outside of major urban centres, owing to the recent recession and the general decline in the Province’s manufacturing base. Since 2011, employment in Ontario has been growing. It is very likely that total employment in Grey has now exceeded the previous 2006 peak levels.
Table 9 Historical Total Place-of-Work Employment County of Grey, 2001 - 2011 Compound Total Year Net Change Annual Growth Employment Rate 2001 39,500 -- -- 2006 42,900 3,400 1.7% 2011 42,000 (900) -0.4% Source: Statistics Canada. Figures are rounded.
1 The data in this section are based on the National Household Survey. The National Household Survey (NHS) is the new voluntary-survey which replaced the long-form Census in 2011. The Census has historically provided an important source of labour force and employment information. Comparability issues have been identified between the historic Census data and the NHS. In particular, the NHS appears to have under-reported total employment in some areas relative to other sources, such as the Monthly Labour Force Survey. Notwithstanding concerns with the NHS and its comparability, the NHS remains the only source for economic and employment data gathered across a large sample of households that covers the entire Province and its municipalities in a standardized way. As a result it should still be used as the standard for 2011 base data, while understanding its potential pitfalls.
HEMSON
13
The recent decline in employment in Grey County included some growth in public administration, health care and social assistance, and rural-based employment, offset by more significant declines in manufacturing and retail trade, as shown in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2: Change in Place of Work Employment, County of Grey, 2006-2011
CHANGE IN PLACE OF WORK EMPLOYMENT COUNTY OF GREY, 2006 - 2011
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting
Mining & oil and gas extraction
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation & warehousing
Information & cultural industries
Finance & insurance
Real estate & rental and leasing
Professional, scientific & technical services
Management of companies & enterprises
Administrative & support
Educational services
Health care & social assistance
Arts, entertainment & recreation
Accommodation & food services
Other services (except public administration)
Public administration
-1,500 -1,250 -1,000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Statistics Canada 2011 National Household Survey & 2006 Census of Canada.
This change in the local economy is indicative of a shift occurring across many Ontario communities, away from manufacturing and traditional industries towards more services-based employment and public sector growth. At the same time, there are reasonable expectations for a recovery in the manufacturing economy albeit quite slowly.
Another aspect of the local economy and employment base in Grey that may not be fully captured by Statistics Canada are some on-farm businesses in the rural and agricultural area, largely related to the local Mennonite community. The County has begun to track applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit small scale on-farm rural businesses, which averaged 18 per year over the 2005 to 2015 time frame. The businesses, which are largely concentrated in the rural areas of Grey Highlands and Southgate, include a range of on-farm commercial activities, most notably for wood and metal works facilities and to a lesser extent for agricultural sales
HEMSON
14
and agri-tourism operations, kennels, landscaping and nursery operations and recreational facilities. The extent to which theses businesses are contributing to local employment is not fully known but they are understood to be offsetting recent job losses in the County to some extent. It is anecdotally known that expansion of Mennonite operations in recent years have resulted in the hiring of area residents external to the Mennonite community, an emerging trend in Grey.
The overall change in measured Place of Work employment that occurred in the County over the 2001 to 2011 timeframe was again experienced unevenly among local municipalities in Grey. Table 10 provides the Place of Work employment by local municipality within Grey over the 2001 to 2011 period.
Table 10 Historical Place of Work Employment by Local Municipality Grey County, 2001-2011 Place of Work Employment 2001-2006 2006-2011 Share of CountyTotal Compound Compound Municipality 2001 2006 2011 Net Change Annual Net Change Annual 2001 2011 Growth Rate Growth Rate Blue Mountains 3,180 4,290 4,000 1,110 6.2% (290) -1.4% 8.1% 9.5% Chatsworth 1,390 1,570 1,650 180 2.5% 80 1.0% 3.5% 3.9% Georgian Bluffs 2,780 2,900 3,010 120 0.8% 110 0.7% 7.0% 7.2% Grey Highlands 3,870 3,840 3,780 (30) -0.2% (60) -0.3% 9.8% 9.0% Hanover 5,280 5,610 6,000 330 1.2% 390 1.4% 13.4% 14.3% Meaford 3,130 3,680 3,330 550 3.3% (350) -2.0% 7.9% 7.9% Owen Sound 14,260 15,620 15,130 1,360 1.8% (490) -0.6% 36.1% 36.0% Southgate 1,820 1,560 1,980 (260) -3.0% 420 4.9% 4.6% 4.7% West Grey 3,790 3,770 3,150 (20) -0.1% (620) -3.5% 9.6% 7.5% Grey County 39,500 42,900 42,000 3,400 1.7% (900) -0.4% 100% 100% Source: Statistics Canada Census data and 2011 National Household Survey. Figures are rounded and may not add.
Key observations include:
Most local municipalities within Grey experienced employment growth between 2001 and 2006, followed by decline during the 2006 to 2011 period.
Southgate was an exception to the County-wide trend, with local employment declining in the earlier part of the Census decade and growing by over 400 jobs between 2006 and 2011.
The highest levels of overall employment growth over the ten-year period were in Owen Sound, Hanover and Blue Mountains, which are employment centres for many Grey residents.
HEMSON
15
Hanover continued to experience employment growth over both Census periods between 2001 and 2011, as did Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs although to more a modest extent.
West Grey declined in its relative share of County-wide employment between 2001 and 2011 while Blue Mountains increased its share marginally over the same time frame.
While information about Place of Work employment tells us how many jobs are in the County, data on Resident Employed Labour Force tells us the number of residents of Grey County that are employed, irrespective of where the job is located.
As shown in Table 11, the number of employed residents in the County grew by roughly 2,300 between 2001 and 2006; followed by a decline of 1,300 during the 2006 to 2011 Census period. This was largely attached to factors such as the recent recession and the out-migration of younger working age residents. Given some comparability issues with the Census and NHS, the 2006 to 2011 change could be interpreted as relatively stable.
Table 11 Historical Resident Employed Labour Force County of Grey, 2001 - 2011 Compound Total Year Net Change Annual Growth Employment Rate 2001 32,700 -- -- 2006 35,000 2,300 1.4% 2011 33,700 (1,300) -0.8% Source: Statistics Canada. Figures are rounded. Again, the pattern of change was unevenly distributed throughout the County, as indicated in Table 12 which shows Resident Employed Labour Force by local municipality.
HEMSON
16
Table 12 Historical Resident Employed Labour Force by Local Municipality Grey County, 2001-2011 Resident Employed Labour Force 2001-2006 2006-2011 Share of County Total Compound Compound Municipality 2001 2006 2011 Net Change Annual Net Change Annual 2001 2011 Growth Rate Growth Rate Blue Mountains 1,940 2,155 2,180 215 2.1% 25 0.2% 5.9% 6.5% Chatsworth 2,110 2,185 2,280 75 0.7% 95 0.9% 6.5% 6.8% Georgian Bluffs 4,085 4,760 4,320 675 3.1% (440) -1.9% 12.5% 12.8% Grey Highlands 3,025 3,160 2,990 135 0.9% (170) -1.1% 9.3% 8.9% Hanover 2,970 2,825 2,790 (145) -1.0% (35) -0.2% 9.1% 8.3% Meaford 3,735 4,085 4,105 350 1.8% 20 0.1% 11.4% 12.2% Owen Sound 8,110 8,605 8,055 495 1.2% (550) -1.3% 24.8% 23.9% Southgate 2,210 2,700 2,410 490 4.1% (290) -2.2% 6.8% 7.2% West Grey 4,465 4,490 4,600 25 0.1% 110 0.5% 13.7% 13.6% Grey County 32,700 35,000 33,700 2,300 1.4% (1,300) -0.8% 100% 100% Source: Statistics Canada Census data and 2011 National Household Survey. Figures are rounded and may not add.
Key observations include:
Most of Grey’s local municipalities experienced a slowing trend in employed residents in the 2006 to 2011 period, relative to the growth which occurred between 2001 and 2006.
Chatsworth, Blue Mountains, West Grey and Meaford continued to grow in employed residents over both Census periods between 2001 and 2011, with West Grey and Chatsworth growing more so in the latter half of the Census decade.
The communities of Owen Sound and Grey Highlands experienced a greater decline of employed residents in the 2006 to 2011 period than the level of growth observed in the earlier 2001 to 2006 period resulting in a net decline in employed residents in these communities over the ten year period.
The overall distribution of employed residents throughout Grey County has not changed in any significant way since 2001.
A significant portion of Grey’s employed residents, roughly 60%, are out-commuters. Table 13 indicates the share of employed residents commuting to employment outside of their own community.
HEMSON
17
Table 13 Out-Commuting by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 Resident Employed Share of Employed Municipality Out-Commuting Labour Force Residents Blue Mountains 2,180 1,405 64% Chatsworth 2,280 1,915 84% Georgian Bluffs 4,320 3,735 86% Grey Highlands 2,990 1,990 67% Hanover 2,790 1,125 40% Meaford 4,105 2,845 69% Owen Sound 8,055 1,720 21% Southgate 2,410 1,985 82% West Grey 4,600 3,530 77% Grey County 33,700 20,200 60% Note: Out commuting reflects those working outside of own municipality. Note: Grey County figures represent those working outside of the County.
With the exceptions of Owen Sound and Hanover, Grey’s local municipalities exhibit very high levels of net out-commuting. Over 80% of employed residents in Chatsworth, Georgian Bluffs and Southgate do not work within their community. West Grey similarly has a significant net out-commuting. It is noted that the commuting figures are derived from the National Household Survey which may exclude Mennonite populations within some Grey municipalities, notably Chatsworth, Grey Highlands and Southgate.
For the most part, Grey residents are commuting to job opportunities elsewhere within Grey County, the largest concentration being in Owen Sound. A significant number of the County’s residents also commute beyond Grey to the Counties of Simcoe and Bruce.
E. COMPARISON TO 2008 GMS FORECASTS
It is important to understand how recent growth in the County compares with the forecasts which formed the basis of the County’s 2008 GMS. Those projections were prepared on the basis of 2006 Census data and forecast growth in population, housing and employment from a 2006 base to a 2031 horizon. A subsequent amendment to the Grey County Official Plan included adoption of the GMS forecasts to a 2026 planning horizon.
HEMSON
18
A review of the 2008 GMS indicates that the original forecasts over-estimated the levels of population and housing growth that would occur in Grey over the 2006 to 2011 period and under-estimated the County’s 2011 employment, as shown in Table 14 below.
Table 14 Comparison - 2008 Grey County GMS 2011 Forecasts & 2011 Census Results GMS 2011 Forecast* 2011 Census Results** Difference Total Population*** 102,200 94,800 7,400 Households 40,400 38,045 2,355 Employment 41,000 42,030 -1,030
* 2011 forecast totals prepared by CS4E for 2008 Growth Management Strategy. ** Actual 2011 totals from Statistics Canada Census and National Household Survey. ***Total Population Including Census Net Undercoverage
Given the marked slowdown in population and housing growth which occurred in Grey since 2006 compared with the level of growth experienced between 2001 and 2006, it is not unreasonable that the original GMS forecasts over-estimated the 2011 figures. A shift in the pattern of growth is in part occurring as a result of the aging of the population.
The divergence between the 2008 GMS forecasts of 2011 population, housing and employment in the County and the actual change that occurred between 2006 and 2011 in Grey highlights the importance of regular forecast reviews. The current GMS update provides a key opportunity to re-examine growth and change in Grey and to ensure the County is planning on the basis of a realistic and appropriate growth outlook moving forward.
The next section provides an overview of the forecast method and assumptions and presents the County-wide results.
HEMSON
19
III COUNTY-WIDE FORECASTS INDICATE MODERATE GROWTH TO 2036
This section provides an overview of the forecast method and assumptions underlying the County-wide forecasts. Three forecast scenarios were prepared based on varying assumptions about future levels of in-migration. A low, a reference and a high scenario provide a range on the County’s future growth outlook. The reference scenario represents the most likely outcome for Grey and was endorsed by County staff following consultation with local municipal planning staff.
A. FORECAST METHOD & ASSUMPTIONS
The forecasts of population, households and employment at the County-level are based upon the standard cohort-survival forecast model. The approach begins by forecasting population and employment based on set of key assumptions and national and provincial economic and demographic trends.
1. Migration is Key Forecast Assumption
Migration will be an important determinant of future growth in Grey County. Over the past 20 years, migration has come to represent the largest share of population growth throughout Ontario. Population growth is the result of three components: births, deaths and migrants. In places where levels of natural increase continue to decline (and in many areas is now negative due to the decrease in fertility rates and the aging of the population), migration drives population growth. Given that the “baby boom” population is now beyond its child bearing years (even the youngest boomers are just turning 50), there will be even fewer births going forward.
Without in-migration, population in the County will decline. To even maintain the current population will require in-migration. This is an important consideration as most communities in Ontario outside of the Toronto and Ottawa areas, including Grey, are experiencing the out-migration of young adults, as illustrated through the recent age-structure of the County’s migrants, shown in Exhibit 3 on the following page.
HEMSON
20
Exhibit 3: Historical Migrant Age Structure, County of Grey, 2001-2011 HISTORICAL MIGRANT AGE STRUCTURE COUNTY OF GREY, 2001 - 2011
90+
85 - 89
80 - 84
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40 - 44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5 - 9
0 - 4
-3000 -2750 -2500 -2250 -2000 -1750 -1500 -1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Statistics Canada 2001, 2006 & 2011 Census.
The forecast method is described below and illustrated in Exhibit 4.
2. Core Parameters
The forecasts are prepared by applying a set of principal assumptions within the forecast model related to Ontario’s economic future and its social context. This set of core economic and social parameters include: the broader outlook and composition of the Ontario economy; migration and settlement patterns, such as national immigration policies and increasing concentration in urban centres; and demographic change, such as aging of the population. The forecasts of Grey County population, household and employment growth begin with these core economic and social parameters.
The current broad economic and demographic trends are expected to continue over the forecast horizon. That is, it is anticipated that the Ontario economy will continue to grow at a moderate pace over the coming decades, consistent with average rates of growth over recent decades. This growth will occur within the context of a continued shift towards a service sector based economy with a proportionately reduced emphasis on manufacturing. With an aging population and fertility rates below replacement levels, immigration will be the key contributor to population growth in Canada, but with much of that growth occurring in the major urban centres. Growth in Grey will continue to be largely dependant on intra-provincial migration based on the attraction
HEMSON
21
of natural amenities and rural living. Like most of Ontario outside the major centres, Grey will continue to have out migration of young adults seeking education and economic opportunities. In Grey’s case the young adult out migration is more than compensated for numerically by in-migration of families with children and early retirees. The effect of these patterns is that Grey will experience a more rapid population aging than larger cities which has consequential effects on housing demand and employment in Grey.
Exhibit 4: Forecast Method Diagram
Population Forecast Employment Forecast
BIRTHS Fertility COUNTY POPULATION FORECAST Mortality DEATHS
Participation Rates NATURAL NET INCREASE MIGRATION Immigration Policy Unemployment Rates
Net In-Commuting
COUNTY CORE ECONOMIC POPULATION FORECAST COUNTY & SOCIAL EMPLOYMENT FORECAST PARAMETERS
HISTORIC & SECTOR ANALYSIS Age Structure & COUNTY HOUSEHOLD FORECAST Headship Rates
Occupancy UNIT TYPE POPULATION MAJOR EMPLOYMENT RURAL PROJECTIONS Patterns RELATED OFFICE LANDS BASED EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT
SINGLES SEMIS ROWS APTS. SETTLMENT AREA SHARES
SETTLEMENT AREA SHARES
POPULATION Average Household Size EMPLOYMENT
3. Population
The population forecast for the County is based on information from a wide range of sources including the 2011 Census and Statistics Canada Annual Demographic Statistics. The forecast accounts for: births by age of mother, deaths by age and sex, and migration by its seven components, each also by age and sex, at both Provincial and sub-provincial geographies. The model operates by taking a five-year age group (e.g. 20 to 24 in 2011), aging them by five years (they become 25 to 29 in 2016), deducting deaths in that age group (the “natural increase”), and finally, adding net migration for that age group. Births during the five-year period produced by this age group are then added to the 0 to 4 year age group.
Age-specific fertility and mortality rates for Grey are calculated based upon the most recent data available. In general, a slight increase in total fertility rates is expected along with continued decline in mortality rates. These patterns are
HEMSON
22
consistent with those used by the Ministry of Finance in its demographic forecasts. These rates are applied to the population age structure to determine growth through natural increase.
Migration by age and sex is then added to determine total population. Assumptions about future levels of migration are an important determinant of the forecast. International and inter-provincial migration increments have little net effect on the County. Most of the migration movement is within Ontario. Mainly, the out-migration of young adults in their 20’s balanced by in-migration in most other age groups. Grey is anticipated to experience net in-migration to the forecast horizon.
4. Households
The household forecast is based upon age-specific household formation data for Grey from the 2011 National Household Survey. This is the share of population within an age group that typically maintains or is the head of a household, otherwise referred to as the “headship rate”. The 2011 National Household Survey data also provides the unit-type preference by the household heads within each age group. Generally, apartments are preferred by younger age groups but this preference declines rapidly and shifts to ground-related units during the years when most family households are formed. A preference for apartment living returns among the elderly and typically only when people can no longer maintain their homes due to declining health or the death of a spouse. The longer we live and the healthier we remain in old age, the longer we remain in ground-related housing. Age-specific household formation rates and housing unit type preferences by age for 2011 are held constant over the course of the forecast.
5. Employment
The employment forecast is driven by the economy in Grey but is calculated based on the population forecast, prepared by applying age-specific labour force participation rates to the population forecast and adjusting for unemployment and commuting patterns.
The County’s employment forecast has been prepared based on 2011 National Household Survey employment data. The ‘reference’ scenario is based on the following assumptions:
2011 commuting patterns shift somewhat over the forecast horizon with less out-commuting, however it is anticipated that Grey will continue to experience out-commuting to job opportunities in the broader economic region, largely to Simcoe County, and to a lesser extent, Bruce County;
HEMSON
23
2011 age- and sex-specific labour force participation rates increase slightly in the short term with economic recovery and then remain stable over the remaining forecast period;
the 2011 unemployment rate of 7.4% declines gradually to approximately 5% over the forecast horizon; and
the 2011 activity rate (the ratio of employment to population within the County) of 45% remains relatively stable, declining marginally to 43% over the period to 2031. The activity rate is the ratio of employment to population within Grey.
6. Low and High Growth Forecast Scenarios Have Been Prepared
In addition to the reference forecast scenario, low and high range forecasts have been prepared in order to provide a broad picture of the future growth outlook. The purpose of the low and high range scenarios is to illustrate growth prospects under a set of deliberately aggressive and conservative assumptions about the future economy and levels of net in-migration to the County.
B. COUNTY-WIDE REFERENCE FORECAST RESULTS
The County-wide forecast results for housing, population and employment are provided in the tables below. Results are shown for the low, reference and high growth scenarios. The reference scenario represents what is in our view, the most likely outcome for Grey County based on our current understanding of economic and demographic trends affecting the pattern and pace of growth and development in the County. The recommended reference scenario forms the basis for allocations of growth to municipalities within Grey. The results are shown at five-year intervals corresponding with the Census, from a 2011 to 2041 horizon, however the 2016 to 2036 timeframe is emphasized as this represents a twenty year planning horizon for updating the Grey County Official Plan.
Tables 15 and 16 indicate the forecast results for Grey County’s Census and Total Population including Census Net Undercoverage. As shown, the County is anticipated to add roughly 10,700 new residents between 2016 and 2036, growing by 11% under the reference forecast scenario over the planning horizon.
HEMSON
24
Table 15 Forecast Census Population County of Grey, 2011-2041 Forecast Scenario Forecast Scenario Growth Year Low Reference High Low Reference High 2011 92,600 92,600 92,600 2016 93,400 94,700 95,500 800 2,100 2,900 2021 94,600 97,200 98,800 1,200 2,500 3,300 2026 96,300 100,100 103,500 1,700 2,900 4,700 2031 97,800 103,000 108,800 1,500 2,900 5,300 2036 98,600 105,400 113,400 800 2,400 4,600 2041 98,800 107,100 117,500 200 1,700 4,100 2016-2036 5,200 10,700 17,900 Figures are rounded.
Table 16 Forecast Total Population (Including Census Net Undercoverage) County of Grey, 2011-2041 Forecast Scenario Forecast Scenario Growth Year Low Reference High Low Reference High 2011 94,800 94,800 94,800 2016 95,600 96,900 97,800 800 2,100 3,000 2021 96,900 99,500 101,200 1,300 2,600 3,400 2026 98,600 102,500 105,900 1,700 3,000 4,700 2031 100,100 105,400 111,400 1,500 2,900 5,500 2036 100,900 107,900 116,200 800 2,500 4,800 2041 101,100 109,700 120,400 200 1,800 4,200 2016-2036 5,300 11,000 18,400 Figures are rounded.
The aging demographic trend is anticipated to continue over the forecast horizon which will result in declining average household size. The County’s forecast Age Structure is illustrated in Exhibit 5.
HEMSON
25
Exhibit 5: Forecast Age Structure, County of Grey, 2011 & 2031
FORECAST AGE STRUCTURE COUNTY OF GREY, 2011 & 2031
90+ 2011 85 - 89 2031 80 - 84 MALE FEMALE
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40 - 44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5 - 9
0 - 4
5%4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Statistics Canada 2011 Census.
Housing growth will continue to outpace growth in population over the forecast horizon, owing to the decline in average household size, again, a result of the aging population. As shown in Table 17, under the reference forecast scenario, Grey County is anticipated to add approximately 4,900 occupied housing units over the 2011 to 2031, representing growth of 12.5% over the planning horizon.
HEMSON
26
Table 17 Forecast Total Occupied Housing Units County of Grey, 2011-2041 Forecast Scenario Forecast Scenario Growth Year Low Reference High Low Reference High 2011 38,000 38,000 38,000 2016 39,100 39,500 39,700 1,100 1,500 1,700 2021 40,300 41,000 41,500 1,200 1,500 1,800 2026 41,600 42,500 43,500 1,300 1,500 2,000 2031 42,200 43,500 45,200 600 1,000 1,700 2036 42,700 44,400 46,700 500 900 1,500 2041 43,000 45,100 48,200 300 700 1,500 2016-2036 3,600 4,900 7,000 Figures are rounded.
Employment is anticipated to remain relatively stable in comparison to growth in housing and population, with total Place of Work employment in Grey growing by just over 1,400 jobs, or 3% over the 2016 to 2036 period under the reference scenario.
Table 18 Forecast Total Place of Work Employment County of Grey, 2011-2041 Forecast Scenario Forecast Scenario Growth Year Low Reference High Low Reference High 2011 42,000 42,000 42,000 2016 42,900 43,500 43,900 900 1,500 1,900 2021 42,600 43,600 44,200 -300 100 300 2026 42,100 43,700 44,800 -500 100 600 2031 41,800 43,800 45,900 -300 100 1,100 2036 42,200 44,900 48,000 400 1,100 2,100 2041 43,200 46,700 50,900 1,000 1,800 2,900 2016-2036 (700) 1,400 4,100 Figures are rounded. Consistent with our recommendation about the most likely outcome and appropriate basis for growth planning in Grey, the County has endorsed the reference forecast scenario. This forms the basis of the local allocations of growth to municipalities within Grey and subsequent update to the Grey County Official Plan.
HEMSON
27
IV LOCAL ALLOCATION OF FORECAST GROWTH BASED ON POLICY, MARKET DEMAND AND SUPPLY
The County-wide reference growth forecast is allocated to local municipalities in Grey taking into consideration a range of factors including planning policy direction, patterns of historic growth and recent development trends, land supply and servicing capacities and consultation with local municipal and industry stakeholders.
A. PPS (2014) SETS THE FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH ALLOCATIONS AND PLANNING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
The update to the GMS forecasts and local distribution of growth is being undertaken within the context of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS articulates Provincial direction for land use planning and appropriately managing growth and urban development in Ontario while protecting and enhancing natural heritage features. An updated PPS came into effect on April 30th, 2014 including a number of strengthened directions and considerations in planning for anticipated growth and development in Grey.
The new PPS (2014) reflects a revised provincial approach to land use planning for rural communities. It recognizes the diversity of rural communities in Ontario.
Rural communities, according to the Province’s Introduction to the PPS 2014: Rural Ontario, differ in terms of economy, geography, population density, culture and society. Each of these characteristics differs within municipalities in the County, given the large scale of the planning area. Grey has its population spread out over a large area, which can present challenges for all kinds of servicing. Efficient use of infrastructure is important for future planning.
The PPS acknowledges the “lifestyle advantages” of some rural areas, especially those with access to cultural heritage and natural amenity areas; a key consideration for many of Grey’s local municipalities.
New housing and other development is to be focused on existing settlement areas. Limited resource-based recreational uses and residential development
HEMSON
28
may be permitted but dispersed development, e.g. estate residential, is not encouraged. It is recognized that the costs of dispersed development are very high and although rural communities may wish to welcome any and all development, it is often not in the long-term fiscal interest of the municipality or the Province.
Within both urban and rural settlement areas, intensification (1.1.3) is intended to accommodate a mix and range of housing types.
Settlement area expansions are only to be considered through comprehensive reviews. The preparation of the updated GMS gives local municipalities of Grey an additional opportunity to consider their future land needs within the context of the updated County-wide planning framework. The PPS indicates that it is important for municipalities to consider the need for expansion, capacity of planned or available infrastructure, alternative directions for growth that avoid primary agricultural areas and to consider redevelopment and intensification before greenfield development.
In the context of the PPS, the forecasts prepared at the County-level and distributed to Grey’s local municipalities in this analysis will provide a basis for planning under an updated Grey County Official Plan.
The nine local municipalities of Grey County include a range of primary, secondary and tertiary settlement areas at the local level as well as significant rural and agricultural lands. Each municipality is responsible for planning for growth and change at the local municipal level, including directing forecast growth to their designated planning areas through their own official plans.
The distribution of growth within the County must be consistent with direction in the PPS (2014). As such, most growth should be directed to settlement areas, firstly to primary settlement areas which are those with the broadest range of land uses and full municipal water and wastewater services, and next to secondary and tertiary settlement areas, which are more residentially oriented and have partial or private services.
For some Grey municipalities, limits will be placed on growth by the rural and privately serviced nature of the community, while most future development will be directed through to serviced settlement areas.
HEMSON
29
The allocation of forecast growth to local municipalities within Grey is determined by applying shares of County-wide household growth to each local municipality. Consideration is given to Provincial, County and local planning policy, historic growth, anticipated market shifts and the capacity to accommodate growth from land supply and servicing perspectives. The forecast population is then determined by applying average household sizes to the household forecast.
Through the growth allocations, the County has an opportunity to balance local aspirations, priorities and capacities for growth with policy direction while recognizing that a range of policy, demographic and economic factors will determine the growth that will ultimately occur within Grey’s local municipalities. The distribution of forecast growth through the County official plan does not limit the level of growth which may occur in a community but provides a reasonable basis for planning purposes. Owing to the inherent uncertainty in forecasting, the County-wide outlook and local distribution of growth should be reviewed at regular intervals and updated as appropriate to reflect the most current data available.
1. Recent Residential Development
Table 19 indicates local residential building permit activity within Grey’s local municipalities over the 2006 to 2011 period and more recently, for 2011 to 2014. The building permit information for the most part reinforces the pattern of growth observed in the Census. Shares of growth by permits need to be compared cautiously to the previous tables as many of the permit units are seasonal and recreational.
HEMSON
30
Table 19 Residential Building Permits by Local Municipality - All Unit Types Grey County, 2006-2014 Total Permits Share of County-wide Municipality 2006-2010 2011-2014 2006-2011 2012-2014 Blue Mountains 779 251 28.6% 21.8% Chatsworth 179 65 6.6% 5.6% Georgian Bluffs 218 178 8.0% 15.4% Grey Highlands 214 125 7.9% 10.8% Hanover 230 64 8.5% 5.6% Meaford 308 90 11.3% 7.8% Owen Sound 361 122 13.3% 10.6% Southgate 194 87 7.1% 7.5% West Grey 238 171 8.7% 14.8% Grey County 2,721 1,153 100.0% 100.0% Source: Statistics Canada building permits. The greatest concentration of residential development over the past decade has been in the Town of The Blue Mountains, where well over 20% of the County’s residential unit development has occurred. A significant portion of this is attributed to seasonal recreational units. The City of Owen Sound, Township of Georgian Bluffs, Municipality of Grey Highlands and the Municipality of West Grey have also experienced higher shares of County-wide residential development in recent years, although annual residential permit activity has slowed since 2012.
The Township of Georgian Bluffs and the municipality of Grey Highlands both increased in relative shares of County-wide residential development activity in more recent years, which may also be attributed in part to the attraction of these communities for recreational dwellings. At the same time, the proportions of County- wide residential development within the Municipality of Meaford, the Township of Chatsworth and Town of Hanover declined marginally in the recent data.
B. UPDATED LAND SUPPLY INVENTORY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
An updated land supply inventory has been prepared based on a County, local municipal and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) data. Two inventories – one derived from County data and one based on local municipal and MPAC data – were examined in order to understand where the County and its local municipalities sit in terms of available land supply to accommodate growth.
HEMSON
31
The inventories are based on data provided by the County and local municipalities within Grey and updated in an iterative process working in consultation with County and local municipal planning staff.
For the local municipal inventory, the vacant designated supply was initially determined by layering vacant parcel data from MPAC over the municipal zoning and /or official plan designations, as provided. It is noted that:
Some municipalities provided zoning information, others official plan designations and others did not provide GIS data. The inventory is based on the data provided and any additional input received from municipal staff, vetted and refined through consultation.
In some cases, the GIS data provided may not reflect the most current situation on the ground with respect to designations or land use. Where provided, additional information on vacant supply supplements the local GIS data.
Some differences in figures between the County and local municipal sources were observed and likely derive from the timing of data and / or varied classification of parcels. The results of both inventories are shown however the land supply capacity analysis employs the local municipal data which has been reviewed by local municipal planning staff.
Detailed land supply tables and mapping are provided as Appendix to this report.
The County land supply inventory is broadly categorized under the following Grey County Official Plan designations:
Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Settlement Areas – the focus of growth and development differentiated by levels of servicing and urban function;
Inland Lakes and Shoreline, Recreational Resort, Escarpment Residential – some development is permitted largely oriented to seasonal recreational residential and commercial uses;
Rural Area – primarily agricultural and forestry related uses as well as low density non-farm residential, garden suites, small scale commercial and industrial uses, institutional and resource based recreational uses and sand/gravel operations (where identified within Aggregate Resource Areas, Mineral Resource Extraction, wayside pits and quarries); and
HEMSON
32
Agricultural Area – primarily agricultural and forestry related uses with some mineral resource extraction and aggregate uses (where identified within Aggregate Resource Areas, Mineral Resource Extraction, wayside pits and quarries) and farm residential. Agricultural includes Agriculture, Special Agriculture and Niagara Escarpment lands as designated in the County official plan.
The results of the County land supply inventory are shown in Tables 20, 21 and 22. Table 20 Vacant Land Supply - All Residential Municipal Totals based on County Wide Official Plan Designations Grey County, 2012 Grey County Official Plan Designations (gross ha) Draft Approved Sub-total Municipality Primary Secondary Tertiary Other Rural Agricultural Total (All) Plans (Non-Rural) Blue Mountains 72.5 0.0 2.0 603.1 (19.8) 657.8 751.7 2,921.7 4,331.2 Chatsworth 0.0 84.1 1.7 2.2 (10.6) 77.4 2,756.1 432.4 3,266.0 Georgian Bluffs 16.4 55.4 39.1 410.7 (44.9) 476.6 2,367.8 2,037.2 4,881.7 Grey Highlands 15.6 136.9 16.4 109.0 (17.7) 260.1 1,667.5 2,452.3 4,380.0 Hanover 111.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 (6.3) 105.4 0.0 0.0 105.4 Meaford 68.8 0.0 13.4 173.0 (7.4) 247.8 1,903.3 1,526.7 3,677.9 Owen Sound 211.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 (11.4) 200.2 0.0 1.3 201.5 Southgate 81.2 3.2 20.6 6.3 (16.1) 95.3 840.7 347.7 1,283.7 West Grey 68.0 12.6 12.9 0.8 (0.7) 93.7 3,577.6 200.8 3,872.0 Grey County 645.8 292.1 106.0 1,305.2 (134.9) 2,214.4 13,864.8 9,920.2 25,999.4
Table 21 Vacant Land Supply - Commercial Municipal Totals based on County Wide Official Plan Designations Grey County, 2012 Grey County Official Plan Designations (gross ha) Draft Approved Sub-total Municipality Primary Secondary Tertiary Other Rural Agricultural Total (All) Plans (Non-Rural) Blue Mountains 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 - 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Chatsworth 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 Georgian Bluffs 0.0 0.6 4.7 0.0 - 5.3 14.4 0.4 20.2 Grey Highlands 0.6 1.8 0.0 102.2 - 104.5 1.9 0.0 106.4 Hanover 18.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 18.7 0.0 0.0 18.7 Meaford 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 - 2.5 0.0 0.4 2.9 Owen Sound 36.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 36.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 Southgate 7.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 7.1 5.9 0.0 13.0 West Grey 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 - 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 Grey County 69.9 2.8 4.8 102.8 - 180.4 22.4 0.8 203.6
Table 22 Vacant Land Supply - Industrial Municipal Totals based on County Wide Official Plan Designations Grey County, 2012 Grey County Official Plan Designations (gross ha) Draft Approved Sub-total Municipality Primary Secondary Tertiary Other Rural Agricultural Total (All) Plans (Non-Rural) Blue Mountains 28.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 28.9 0.0 0.0 28.9 Chatsworth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Georgian Bluffs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grey Highlands 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 17.2 9.2 30.6 56.9 Hanover 51.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 51.0 0.0 0.0 51.0 Meaford 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 20.1 4.6 5.6 30.3 Owen Sound 125.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 125.2 0.0 0.0 125.2 Southgate 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 16.3 5.8 0.0 22.2 West Grey 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 1.3 8.6 0.0 9.9 Grey County 260.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 260.0 28.2 36.2 324.4 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on MPAC data and information provided by Grey County. Note: Agricultural includes Official Plan designations: Agricultural, Special Agricultural and Niagara Escarpment Note: Other includes Official Plan designations: Inland Lakes & Shoreline, Recreational Resort & Escarpment Recreation.
HEMSON
33
As shown, the County has over 1,000 ha of vacant residentially-designated lands within Grey’s designated settlements areas, the bulk of which is contained within Primary settlements, which are those with a full range of urban services and functions.
There is also a fairly substantial supply of vacant lands under Inland Lakes & Shorelines, Recreational Resort and Escarpment Recreation designations, notably within the Town of The Blue Mountains and the Township of Georgian Bluffs. It is anticipated that these lands will accommodate growth in residential and commercial uses, particularly related to seasonal units and recreational uses.
Designated lands currently in draft approved plans of subdivision are removed from the overall inventory in order to evaluate future growth potential on un- planned vacant lands. It is noted that for some municipalities, there is a long- standing supply of lands with draft approved status that have been slow to develop and may not come to market in the foreseeable future. The status of these plans may be re-assessed by the County as appropriate in order to ensure the adequacy of servicing allocations and capacity.
A good amount of vacant industrial lands are also identified within Primary Settlement Areas and to a lesser extent in the Rural Area.
A significant amount of rural and agricultural area lands are also noted which may accommodate some limited growth in residential and employment uses but, consistent with Provincial policy, these are not areas to be considered for directing any significant amount of future growth. It is noted that there has been some growth in small scale commercial industrial development in the rural and agricultural areas in recent years, and that provisions for on-farm diversified uses may enable some further employment growth in these areas going forward. However, this is not anticipated to be a significant growth area for the County, nor would Provincial policy encourage it.
A local municipal land supply inventory was prepared and refined based on consultation with local municipal planning staff. This is the land supply used as basis for the growth capacity analysis. The supply comprises vacant designated residential, commercial and industrial lands, excluding lands under approved draft plans, as identified through local municipal official plan and zoning by-law data as provided by Grey municipalities, and cross-referenced with information from MPAC.
HEMSON
34
Focus in this exercise is on urban designations as the locations where most future growth and development will be directed, consistent with the PPS. It is acknowledged that for many municipalities within Grey County, there is significant vacant land and registered and draft approved plans in the rural area, however for the purposes of considering growth potential in this exercise, settlement areas are the focus. The vacant land inventory that forms the basis of the analysis is shown in Table 23.
Table 23 Vacant Land Supply Inventory by Local Municipality Grey County, 2014 Local Designations (gross ha) Municipality Residential Commercial Industrial Total Blue Mountains 244.3 5.6 28.9 278.8 Chatsworth 123.7 0.2 7.4 131.3 Georgian Bluffs 389.5 9.8 43.9 443.1 Grey Highlands 369.3 105.9 17.2 492.4 Hanover 102.5 19.4 56.3 178.3 Meaford 210.2 3.2 26.8 240.2 Owen Sound 170.2 29.7 136.6 336.5 Southgate 64.4 1.6 45.3 111.3 West Grey 79.9 1.1 9.3 90.3 Grey County 1,754.0 176.4 371.8 2,302.2 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Municipal data provided. Note: Draft Approved Plans have been netted out of the above totals. Note: Residential supply for Owen Sound includes the area designated
in Sydenham Heights Secondary Plan (Phase 1 & 2).
1. Residential Land Capacity Analysis
A density range was applied to the vacant developable residential land inventory, based on direction contained within section 2.6 of the Grey County Official Plan and considering local servicing characteristics, as a basis for determining the potential unit capacity within each local municipality. A net to gross adjustment was made, reducing the gross developable land supply by a factor of 35%, an industry standard, to provide for subdivision and infrastructure needs.
For the City of Owen Sound, the figures have been adjusted to account for the approved Sydenham Heights Secondary Plan Phase I and II for which capacity estimates were recently prepared by the City reflected in a September 2014 update to
HEMSON
35
the City of Owen Sound Official Plan. The mapping and figures have been manually noted to reflect this however GIS data was not provided.
The estimated capacity of vacant designated lands to accommodate residential growth by local municipality in Grey is shown in Table 24.
Table 24 Vacant Residential Land Supply Capacity by Local Municipality Grey County, 2014 Vacant Residential Unit Capacity @ Density Range Municipality Gross ha Net ha 3 6 15 20 25 Blue Mountains 244.3 158.8 476 953 2,382 3,176 n/a Chatsworth 123.7 80.4 241 n/a n/a n/a n/a Georgian Bluffs 389.5 253.2 759 1,519 3,797 5,063 n/a Grey Highlands 369.3 240.1 720 1,440 3,601 4,802 n/a Hanover 102.5 66.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,666 Meaford 210.2 136.6 410 820 2,049 2,732 n/a Owen Sound 170.2 110.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2,765 Southgate 64.4 41.9 126 251 628 837 n/a West Grey 79.9 51.9 156 312 779 1,039 n/a Grey County 1,754.0 1,140.1 2,888 5,294 13,236 17,648 4,432 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Municipal data provided.
Based on the net vacant residential supply and the density assumptions applied, there appears to be fairly significant unit capacity County-wide and within each of Grey’s local municipalities.
There may also be additional residential development capacity for some municipalities in Grey that is not captured here – for example in mixed use designated areas where the ultimate balance of residential, commercial and industrial uses is yet to be determined. Further, the capacity analysis only considers vacant designated residential lands – additional unit capacity through intensification within existing built up areas would further add to the County’s overall unit potential.
Conversely, the extent to which servicing capacity may place limits on growth for some Grey communities could reduce the ultimate unit potential.
The capacity estimate gives an indication of the range on unit growth that could potential be accommodated within the existing residentially designated greenfield supply. Given the significant capacity identified, it is likely that Grey’s local municipalities will have more than sufficient designated lands to accommodate residential growth potential for the twenty year planning horizon. At such time that the County undertakes its next GMS and official plan update, the forecasts and local growth allocations will be reviewed and updated as appropriate to reflect any change in the pattern or pace of growth within Grey based on the most current available data.
HEMSON
36
2. Employment Land Capacity Analysis
An analysis was also undertaken of the amount of Grey’s vacant designated industrial lands in order to assess the capacity to accommodate traditional employment within the County. A net to gross adjustment of 80% for industrial land was applied to the gross developable supply as well as a further adjustment reducing the net supply by an industry standard 15% for long-term vacancy and underutilization. A density range of 15, 20 and 25 jobs per net ha was applied to the adjusted net supply. The results are shown in Table 25.
Table 25 Vacant Industrial Land Supply Capacity by Local Municipality Grey County, 2014 Employment Capacity at a range of densities Vacant Industrial Land Supply (ha) Municipality (employees / net ha) Gross Net* Adjusted** 15 20 25 Blue Mountains 28.9 23.1 19.6 295 393 491 Chatsworth 7.4 5.9 5.0 75 100 125 Georgian Bluffs 43.9 35.1 29.8 447 597 746 Grey Highlands 17.2 13.7 11.7 175 234 292 Hanover 56.3 45.0 38.3 574 766 957 Meaford 26.8 21.5 18.2 274 365 456 Owen Sound 136.6 109.3 92.9 1,394 1,858 2,323 Southgate 45.3 36.3 30.8 463 617 771 West Grey 9.3 7.5 6.4 95 127 159 Grey County 371.8 297.4 252.8 3,792 5,056 6,320 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. based on Municipal data provided. *80% Net to gross adjustment **15% Adjustment for Underutilization and Long-term Vacancy.
Based on the density assumptions applied, there appears to be a significant amount of designated industrial land within the County to accommodate growth in employment land employment, which will be the focus for traditional types of employment such as manufacturing and other industrial-oriented uses. The marketability and timing of development will be affected by factors such as shovel-readiness and location.
Population-related employment growth is anticipated to occur primarily in commercial areas and throughout all designations in response to growth in the resident population. Rural-based employment growth will also occur within industrial and rural areas, as appropriate.
Although there is some variation in the aggregated totals from the County, MPAC and local municipal data sources, ultimately both land supply inventories suggest a fairly significant amount of vacant designated lands available to accommodate future population and employment growth on a County-wide basis. It is not anticipated that additional lands will need to be designated in order to meet the needs of expected
HEMSON
37
growth under the updated GMS forecasts. The growth forecasts, local allocations and designated land supply will be reviewed at regular intervals in order to reflect the most currently available information on growth patterns and economic and demographic trends in the County.
C. CONSULTATION HIGHLIGHTS LOCAL PRIORITIES AND LIMITS TO GROWTH
Consultation was undertaken with local municipal and industry stakeholders in order to better understand growth and development trends from local perspectives, considering priorities, potential opportunities and constraints on growth. Some key considerations include:
Limits to existing servicing capacity and high costs of infrastructure expansion may place limits on growth for some Grey municipalities, in particular for Southgate and Chatsworth.
There are adequate residential lands within the County however there may be a lack of shovel-ready employment lands in some municipalities, notably, Southgate and Georgian Bluffs.
Much of the designated greenfield land supply across the County is privately serviced, including a large rural area. It is acknowledged that most growth will be directed to areas with full municipal servicing, as directed by the PPS.
Despite an overall slowing growth trend in the County, many Grey municipalities have new residential development underway.
The aging population, out-migration of youth and loss of local industries are affecting long-term growth and economic prospects in the County.
There is great opportunity for growth in the recreation and retirement- oriented markets. A challenge will be to attract and retain young, skilled workers and high quality employers.
The level of seasonal recreational residential development varies across the County. There is some concern about variable demand placed on services in some municipalities, in particular for Blue Mountains.
HEMSON
38
Taking the range of policy, market, supply and local priorities into consideration, the County-wide forecasts of population, housing and employment has been distributed among Grey’s local municipalities, as presented in the following section.
HEMSON
39
V LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF FORECAST GROWTH
The results of the local municipal growth allocations for population, housing and employment from a 2011 to 2041 horizon are presented below. Emphasis is on the 2016 to 2036 timeframe as this represents a twenty year planning horizon and will be the likely planning horizon for subsequent updates to the Grey County Official Plan. There are no major shifts anticipated in the overall distribution of population, housing and employment in the County.
A. LOCAL GROWTH ALLOCATIONS
The County-wide reference forecasts have been distributed to Grey’s nine local municipalities based on a combination of planning policy, historic growth, market demand, consultation with local municipal and industry stakeholders and the capacity to accommodate growth from land supply and servicing perspectives. Shares of household growth have been allocated to each member municipality based on these considerations. The forecast population is then determined by applying average household sizes to the household forecast.
The draft allocation of forecast growth is presented for consideration by the County and municipal stakeholders and will be refined as appropriate based on feedback received. A summary of the results is provided in the tables below.
Table 26 indicates the shares of household growth that provided that basis for the distribution of population and housing growth.
HEMSON
40
Table 26 Municipal Shares of County-wide Household Forecast 2016-2036 Share of County-wide Municipality Housing Growth Blue Mountains 16.1% Chatsworth 4.8% Georgian Bluffs 11.6% Grey Highlands 11.9% Hanover 6.8% Meaford 13.0% Owen Sound 17.1% Southgate 7.7% West Grey 11.0% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.
As shown above, the highest share of the County-wide forecast growth has been allocated to the City of Owen Sound, reflecting its historic role as a population and service centre within the County and significant identified capacity to accommodate growth. The Town of the Blue Mountains similarly has a high share of forecast housing growth, consistent with observed and anticipated trends.
The balance of forecast growth is relatively evenly distributed between Grey communities, considering local capacities and growth trends. The Township of Chatsworth is anticipated to experience a more modest share of County-wide growth owing to its rural serviced character.
B. HOUSEHOLDS
Table 27 indicates the forecast of permanent population housing units by local municipality from 2011 to 2041, highlighting growth over the 2016 to 2036 planning period.
HEMSON
41
Table 27 Housing Unit Forecast by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011-2041 Housing Units (Occupied Households) 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 2,850 3,060 3,700 3,850 3,960 790 1.15% Chatsworth 2,480 2,560 2,740 2,780 2,810 220 0.41% Georgian Bluffs 4,100 4,330 4,810 4,890 4,970 560 0.61% Grey Highlands 3,750 3,920 4,410 4,510 4,580 590 0.70% Hanover 3,180 3,270 3,530 3,600 3,650 330 0.48% Meaford 4,640 4,780 5,290 5,410 5,500 630 0.62% Owen Sound 9,610 9,750 10,390 10,580 10,740 830 0.41% Southgate 2,640 2,750 3,050 3,120 3,170 370 0.63% West Grey 4,880 5,090 5,530 5,620 5,700 530 0.50% Grey County 38,130 39,510 43,450 44,360 45,080 4,850 0.58% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.
As shown, all Grey municipalities will continue to add households over the forecast horizon, with the highest levels of absolute growth anticipated within the municipalities of Owen Sound, Blue Mountains, Meaford and Grey Highlands.
Georgian Bluffs, Southgate and West Grey are also expected to experience relatively high rates of housing growth within a modest overall housing growth outlook.
More modest growth in households is anticipated for Chatsworth, reflecting its more rural nature.
C. POPULATION
Tables 28 and 29 indicate forecast local municipal Census and total population including Census Net Undercoverage.
HEMSON
42
Table 28 Forecast Census Population by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 - 2041 Census Population 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 6,450 6,850 8,130 8,460 8,700 1,610 1.06% Chatsworth 6,440 6,550 6,950 7,080 7,160 530 0.39% Georgian Bluffs 10,400 10,840 11,870 12,140 12,330 1,300 0.57% Grey Highlands 9,520 9,800 10,850 11,090 11,290 1,290 0.62% Hanover 7,490 7,620 8,190 8,370 8,480 750 0.47% Meaford 11,100 11,260 12,310 12,620 12,840 1,360 0.57% Owen Sound 21,690 21,740 23,010 23,520 23,880 1,780 0.39% Southgate 7,190 7,380 8,130 8,330 8,470 950 0.61% West Grey 12,290 12,620 13,510 13,780 13,960 1,160 0.44% Grey County 92,570 94,660 102,950 105,390 107,110 10,730 0.54% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.
Rates of population growth are anticipated to lag growth of occupied households across Grey County, an outcome of the aging population and resulting decline in average household size.
Population growth is somewhat balanced throughout the County, with the largest concentrations of absolute growth in population anticipated for Blue Mountains, Owen Sound, Meaford, Georgian Bluffs and Grey Highlands.
Table 29 Forecast Total Population by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 - 2041 Total Population (includes Census Net Undercoverage) 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 6,610 7,010 8,320 8,660 8,910 1,650 1.06% Chatsworth 6,590 6,700 7,120 7,250 7,330 550 0.40% Georgian Bluffs 10,650 11,090 12,150 12,430 12,630 1,340 0.57% Grey Highlands 9,750 10,040 11,110 11,360 11,560 1,320 0.62% Hanover 7,670 7,800 8,390 8,570 8,690 770 0.47% Meaford 11,360 11,530 12,600 12,920 13,150 1,390 0.57% Owen Sound 22,200 22,250 23,550 24,080 24,460 1,830 0.40% Southgate 7,360 7,560 8,330 8,530 8,670 970 0.61% West Grey 12,580 12,920 13,830 14,110 14,300 1,190 0.44% Grey County 94,770 96,900 105,400 107,910 109,700 11,010 0.54% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.
HEMSON
43
D. EMPLOYMENT
Table 30 indicates forecast total Place of Work employment by local municipality from 2011 to a 2041 horizon, again highlighting growth over the 2016 to 2036 planning period.
Table 30 Forecast Total Employment by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 - 2041 Total Place of Work Employment 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 4,000 4,170 4,210 4,330 4,500 160 0.19% Chatsworth 1,650 1,710 1,730 1,780 1,850 70 0.20% Georgian Bluffs 3,010 3,170 3,200 3,280 3,430 110 0.17% Grey Highlands 3,780 3,940 3,970 4,080 4,270 140 0.17% Hanover 6,000 6,190 6,230 6,370 6,600 180 0.14% Meaford 3,330 3,420 3,450 3,540 3,690 120 0.17% Owen Sound 15,130 15,500 15,590 15,940 16,500 440 0.14% Southgate 1,980 2,070 2,090 2,160 2,280 90 0.21% West Grey 3,150 3,300 3,340 3,430 3,600 130 0.19% Grey County 42,030 43,470 43,810 44,910 46,720 1,440 0.16% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.
A moderate outlook for employment growth is split relatively evenly among Grey municipalities with the largest concentration of growth in Owen Sound, reflecting its role as an economic centre in the County.
The employment forecast is divided into three land-use based categories:
Population-related employment is employment that primarily serves a resident population and includes retail, education, healthcare, and local government. This generally grows in line with population growth.
Employment-land employment refers to traditional industrial-type employment primarily accommodated in low-rise industrial buildings in business parks and employment areas.
Rural-based employment refers to jobs scattered throughout the rural area, primarily related to agricultural and primary industries. Tables 31, 32 and 33 on the following page indicate the distribution of employment by type among Grey’s local municipalities.
HEMSON
44
Table 31 Forecast Population-Related Employment by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 - 2041 Population Related Employment 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 2,420 2,530 2,550 2,620 2,730 90 0.17% Chatsworth 620 640 650 670 700 30 0.23% Georgian Bluffs 1,380 1,480 1,500 1,540 1,610 60 0.20% Grey Highlands 1,410 1,470 1,490 1,530 1,600 60 0.20% Hanover 2,910 2,960 2,980 3,020 3,090 60 0.10% Meaford 1,920 1,960 1,980 2,030 2,110 70 0.18% Owen Sound 8,250 8,320 8,360 8,490 8,690 170 0.10% Southgate 630 670 690 720 770 50 0.36% West Grey 1,200 1,270 1,290 1,330 1,400 60 0.23% Grey County 20,740 21,300 21,490 21,950 22,700 650 0.15% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.
Table 32 Forecast Employment Land Employment by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 - 2041 Employment Land Employment 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 890 930 940 970 1,010 40 0.21% Chatsworth 500 520 520 540 560 20 0.19% Georgian Bluffs 960 1,000 1,000 1,030 1,080 30 0.15% Grey Highlands 1,590 1,660 1,670 1,720 1,800 60 0.18% Hanover 3,090 3,230 3,250 3,350 3,510 120 0.18% Meaford 630 650 660 680 710 30 0.23% Owen Sound 6,880 7,180 7,230 7,450 7,810 270 0.18% Southgate 500 520 520 540 570 20 0.19% West Grey 930 970 980 1,010 1,060 40 0.20% Grey County 15,970 16,660 16,770 17,290 18,110 630 0.19% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.
Table 33 Forecast Rural-Based Employment by Local Municipality Grey County, 2011 - 2041 Rural Based Employment 2016-2036 Municipality Compound Annual 2011 2016 2031 2036 2041 Net Change Growth Rate Blue Mountains 690 710 720 740 760 30 0.21% Chatsworth 530 550 560 570 590 20 0.18% Georgian Bluffs 670 690 700 710 740 20 0.14% Grey Highlands 780 810 810 830 870 20 0.12% Hanover - - - - - n/a n/a Meaford 780 810 810 830 870 20 0.12% Owen Sound - - - - - n/a n/a Southgate 850 880 880 900 940 20 0.11% West Grey 1,020 1,060 1,070 1,090 1,140 30 0.14% Grey County 5,320 5,510 5,550 5,670 5,910 160 0.14% Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.
HEMSON
45
It is noted that there may be some additional growth in the rural employment category beyond what is forecast, related to on-farm activity, largely of the County’s Mennonite communities and associated employment.
E. OUTLOOK FOR SEASONAL UNITS
The County’s location along the shoreline of Georgian Bay along with its unique natural amenities and character, contribute to its attractiveness for residential development oriented to seasonal and recreational units in many Grey communities. A key consideration in planning for future housing growth and development in the County is the role that these seasonal and recreational units play as a component of total housing stock. Seasonal and recreational units do not contribute to a community’s permanent population but do result in increased demand for land, services and infrastructure while also contributing to the local economy.
Statistics Canada reports both occupied housing units and total housing units. In Grey, the difference between the two is primarily these seasonal and recreational units. The count of these units which did not house any permanent population rose from 7,200 in 2006 to 8,400 in 2011 and accounted for 18% of total housing units County- wide, with significant variation at the local municipal level. While many of these units are in traditional recreational settings such as Blue Mountain or shoreline locations on Georgian Bay, in some communities, such as Grey Highlands, there are also an increasing number of recreational units found in urban areas and in scattered rural non-water-based locations.
The 2011 shares of vacant or seasonal and recreational units by local municipality are shown on Map 3 below.
HEMSON
46
Table 34 indicates how the proportion of seasonal and recreational and vacant units as a component of total private dwellings changed within Grey’s local municipalities between 2001 and 2011.
Table 34 Proportion of Total Housing Units Not Occupied by Usual Grey County by Local Municipality, 2001-2011 Municipality 2001 2006 2011 Blue Mountains 52% 48% 54% Chatsworth 15% 14% 15% Georgian Bluffs 15% 14% 17% Grey Highlands 27% 28% 29% Hanover 3% 5% 6% Meaford 7% 14% 13% Owen Sound 4% 4% 5% Southgate 9% 8% 10% West Grey 11% 10% 11% Grey County 16% 16% 18% Source: Statistics Canada.
HEMSON
47
Overall, the share of seasonal and recreational and vacant units has increased marginally at the County-level since 2001, from 16% in 2001 to 18% in 2011. This proportion varies greatly at the local municipal level, based on location and natural amenities. The highest proportion of vacant or seasonal recreational units are found in Grey Highlands, Georgian Bluffs and Blue Mountains, in the latter of which these units have come to account for nearly 55% of total housing stock.
The balance between occupied households and total private dwellings – that is the share of vacant, seasonal and recreational units – have not shifted significantly in any Grey local municipalities over the past decade. Looking ahead, it is likely that the growth in seasonal recreational units will occur relatively in line with historic trends to the extent that the land supply for these types of units is available, in particular along shorelines where demand is greatest. This type of development will be a combination of low density residential on private or partial services within the Inland Lakes and Shorelines and Escarpment Recreation designations and low to medium density development on full services in the Recreational Resort Recreation. Taken together, these designations comprise a vacant designated supply of over 1,000 gross hectares within the County.
Over the course of the forecast period, the proportion of seasonal and recreational units will growth and retract, in particular as units are converted to permanent residences and back to seasonal units over time through changes in ownership and in response to demographic change. However, it is not anticipated that any significant divergence from the overall observed pattern will occur.
A proportion of the increment between occupied households and total private dwellings is vacant units, on average around 5% based on estimates from Statistics Canada. Considering this, the outlook for seasonal recreational units within Grey’s local municipalities is based on a 5% adjustment to the forecast occupied households to reflect vacancy and a continuation of the 2011 share of units not occupied by usual residents.
The results are provided in Table 35 which indicates forecast occupied dwelling units, vacant dwellings and seasonal recreational units at a 2036 planning horizon. Taken together, these elements comprise the outlook for total private dwellings.
HEMSON
48
Table 35 Housing Outlook by Dwelling Characteristics Grey County by Local Municipality, 2036 2036 Forecast Totals Seasonal Municipality Occupied Total Private Vacant Units Recreational Households Dwellings Units Blue Mountains 3,850 230 4,300 8,380 Chatsworth 2,780 20 440 3,240 Georgian Bluffs 4,890 50 900 5,840 Grey Highlands 4,510 90 1,770 6,370 Hanover 3,600 190 0 3,790 Meaford 5,410 40 760 6,210 Owen Sound 10,580 540 0 11,120 Southgate 3,120 20 310 3,450 West Grey 5,620 40 670 6,330 Grey County 44,360 1,220 9,150 54,730 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd. Based on the above, Table 36 indicates the estimated growth in seasonal recreational units from a 2016 to a 2036 horizon.
Table 36 Growth Outlook for Seasonal Recreational Units Grey County by Local Municipality, 2016 - 2036 Estimated Seasonal Recreational Units Municipality 2011 2036 Net Change Blue Mountains 3250 4300 1050 Chatsworth 390 440 50 Georgian Bluffs 770 900 130 Grey Highlands 1500 1770 270 Hanover 0 0 0 Meaford 670 760 90 Owen Sound 0 0 0 Southgate 270 310 40 West Grey 580 670 90 Grey County 7430 9150 1720 Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd.
The Town of the Blue Mountains is anticipated to experience the greatest level of seasonal recreational unit growth, consistent with its historically significant share of these types of units and an expectation of continued demand for the municipalities
HEMSON
49
natural recreational amenities. Georgian Bluffs and Grey Highlands are also anticipated to see relatively higher levels of these types of units.
Overall, no major shifts in the pattern of growth or major concentrations of population, housing or employment are anticipated in the County. The local municipal allocations of forecast population, permanent and seasonal housing, and employment were reviewed by local municipal planning staff who were given the opportunity to provide comments on the draft results. No concerns with the forecast distribution were raised. The County-wide reference growth scenario and local allocations have been endorsed by County staff and provide a basis for a forthcoming update to the Grey County Official Plan.
HEMSON
50
VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report has presented the results of the updated Grey County GMS, including updated forecasts of population, housing and employment growth from a 2011 to 2041 horizon with an emphasis on the twenty year planning horizon from 2016 to 2036. Forecast growth has been allocated to local municipalities in Grey to provide a basis for planning in the County. The County land supply inventory has also been reviewed and updated with estimates made on the capacity to accommodate residential and employment growth.
Key Conclusions:
Grey County has experienced moderate growth in population over recent periods, with housing growth outpacing population due to the aging of the population and resulting decline in average household size. Employment declined somewhat over the most recent Census period amidst a shifting economy. The growth that has been occurring over recent Census periods has been unevenly distributed among Grey’s local municipalities and continues to reinforce the general pattern of population, housing and employment concentrations in the County.
Population and housing growth in Grey has been slower over the most recent Census period than was anticipated under the 2008 GMS forecasts – the County’s 2011 population was 7,400 fewer than forecast; households, 2,350 fewer. At the same time, those forecasts somewhat underestimated 2011 employment in the County. The current update takes into account more recently available information and considers the County’s future growth outlook in the context of recent and emerging economic and demographic trends.
Three County-wide forecast scenarios were prepared and reviewed by County staff – a low, reference and high outlook based on varied assumptions about future demographic and economic conditions in Grey. The reference scenario represents the most likely outcome for Grey based on our current understanding of economic and demographic trends affecting the pattern and pace of growth and development in the County. Grey County planning staff endorsed the reference scenario which forms the basis for local allocations of growth presented in this report.
HEMSON
51
An outlook on seasonal recreational units has also been prepared. Seasonal recreational units have represented a significant portion of the housing stock for some municipalities in Grey, with the County averaging approximately 18% of total housing not occupied by usual residents since 2001. Planning for growth in the County must take into account the effects of these units which do not add to the permanent population base but do require municipal services and contribute to the local economy.
Under the reference forecast scenario, Grey County is anticipated to add 11,000 residents over a 2016 to 2036 planning horizon, growing to a total population, including Census net undercoverage, of 107,900 in 2036. Housing growth is anticipated to out-pace population owing to the aging population trend and resulting decline in household size. The County is forecast to add 4,900 households between 2016 and 2036. Another 1,700 seasonal recreational units are anticipated over the planning horizon. Employment in Grey is forecast to grow moderately over the forecast horizon to 2036 total employment of 48,000.
The reference forecast growth has been allocated to local municipalities in Grey taking into account planning policy direction, historical and recent growth patterns, emerging economic and demographic trends and the capacity to accommodate growth from land supply and servicing perspectives. Overall, no major shifts in the pattern of growth in the County are anticipated.
A review and update to the County land supply inventory was undertaken, resulting in the identification of over 2,300 gross ha of vacant urban designated lands across Grey’s local municipalities, more than sufficient to meet demand over a twenty-year planning horizon.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the County update the Grey County Official Plan, revising Tables 1,2 and 3 of the official plan to incorporate the updated GMS forecasts and local allocations of population, housing and employment growth to 2031 and the extended planning horizon to 2036.
At this time, there is no identified need to expand urban boundaries in order to accommodate the growth outlook for housing or employment at a County or local municipal level. The County should continue to monitor and maintain an updated land budget going forward in order to ensure an adequate supply over the long-term.
HEMSON
52
Consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, housing growth should be directed to designated settlement areas, in particular where full urban services are planned or available. It is recommended that the County remove Table 4 from the official plan and the specific growth targets for settlement area housing growth and replace with a policy worded at directing growth to settlement areas, recognizing that some minimal growth will continue to occur in the rural area.
Update Table 5 of the official plan to incorporate the updated outlook for seasonal recreational units and extending the horizon from a 2011 to 2036 horizon.
The County should continue to monitor on-farm small-scale industrial and commercial uses in order to ensure that the level and pace of this type of development does not compromise Provincial, County or local municipal objectives for rural and agricultural areas. At the same time recognition should be given to the role these types of businesses have and may continue to play in the local economy of Grey communities, in particular during times of economic downturn.
The forecasts which form the basis of the GMS should be monitored and updated at regular intervals, recognizing the inherent uncertainty in forecasting and the complex range of planning policy, demographic and economic factors affecting how growth will ultimately play out, on-the-ground. Regular review and update based on the most currently available information will help to ensure that the County and local municipalities in Grey are planning for growth and development in a manner consistent with Provincial policy and supportive of achieving a healthy and sustainable growth outlook over the long-term.
HEMSON
Appendix Land Supply Inventory – Mapping and Tables
HEMSON Vacant Land Supply - Summary County of Grey Based on MPAC vacant land codes and County OP land-use designations
Vacant Land Supply - All Residential MPAC Codes (Ha) Municipal Totals based on County Wide OP Designations County of Grey, 2012 County OP Designated Space Extensive Space Extensive Inland Lakes & Recreational Escarpment Draft Approved Primary Secondary Tertiary Commercial Industrial Shoreline Resort Recreation Plans Total Rural Agricultural/ NEC* Total** Town of The Blue Mountains 72.5 - 2.0 - - - 258.6 344.5 (19.8) 657.8 751.7 2,921.7 4,331.2 Township of Chatsworth - 84.1 1.7 - - 2.2 - - (10.6) 77.4 2,756.1 432.4 3,266.0 Township of Georgian Bluffs 16.4 55.4 39.1 7.0 1.1 398.6 - 12.2 (44.9) 484.7 2,367.8 2,037.2 4,889.8 Municipality of Grey Highlands 15.6 136.9 16.4 - - 19.6 1.7 87.6 (17.7) 260.1 1,667.5 2,452.3 4,380.0 Town of Hanover1 111.7 ------(6.3) 105.4 - - 105.4 Municipality of Meaford 68.8 - 13.4 0.3 - 173.0 - - (7.4) 248.1 1,903.3 1,526.7 3,678.2 City of Owen Sound 211.6 ------(11.4) 200.2 - 1.3 201.5 Township of Southgate 81.2 3.2 20.6 - - 6.3 - - (16.1) 95.3 840.7 347.7 1,283.7 Municipality of West Grey 68.0 12.6 12.9 - - 0.8 - - (0.7) 93.7 3,577.6 200.8 3,872.0 Grey County 645.8 292.1 106.0 7.3 1.1 600.6 260.3 444.3 (134.9) 2,222.8 13,864.8 9,920.2 26,007.8 1There are no MPAC vacant codes currently in the Hanover Special Policy Area yet it has been included in a manner consistent with OPA19. *Agricultural includes OP layers: Agricultural, Special Agricultural and Niagara Escarpment **This total includes the Rural and Agricultural.
Vacant Land Supply - Commercial MPAC Codes (Ha) Municipal Totals based on County Wide OP Designations County of Grey, 2012 County OP Designated Space Extensive Space Extensive Inland Lakes & Recreational Escarpment Draft Approved Primary Secondary Tertiary Commercial Industrial Shoreline Resort Recreation Plans Total Rural Agricultural/ NEC* Total** Town of The Blue Mountains 4.3 - - - - - 0.7 - - 5.0 - - 5.0 Township of Chatsworth - 0.2 ------0.2 - - 0.2 Township of Georgian Bluffs - 0.6 4.7 7.4 - - - - - 12.8 14.4 0.4 27.6 Municipality of Grey Highlands 0.6 1.8 - - - - - 102.2 - 104.5 1.9 - 106.4 Town of Hanover1 18.7 ------18.7 - - 18.7 Municipality of Meaford 2.4 - 0.1 1.1 - - - - - 3.6 - 0.4 4.0 City of Owen Sound 36.0 ------36.0 - - 36.0 Township of Southgate 7.0 0.1 ------7.1 5.9 - 13.0 Municipality of West Grey 0.8 0.2 ------1.0 0.1 - 1.1 Grey County 69.9 2.8 4.8 8.5 - - 0.7 102.2 - 188.9 22.4 0.8 212.1 1There are no MPAC vacant codes currently in the Hanover Special Policy Area yet it has been included in a manner consistent with OPA19. *Agricultural includes OP layers: Agricultural, Special Agricultural and Niagara Escarpment **This total includes the Rural and Agricultural.
Vacant Land Supply - Industrial MPAC Codes (Ha) Municipal Totals based on County Wide OP Designations County of Grey, 2012 County OP Designated Space Extensive Space Extensive Inland Lakes & Recreational Escarpment Draft Approved Primary Secondary Tertiary Commercial Industrial Shoreline Resort Recreation Plans Total Rural Agricultural/ NEC* Total** Town of The Blue Mountains 28.9 ------28.9 - - 28.9 Township of Chatsworth ------Township of Georgian Bluffs ------Municipality of Grey Highlands 17.2 ------17.2 9.2 30.6 56.9 Town of Hanover1 51.0 ------51.0 - - 51.0 Municipality of Meaford 20.1 ------20.1 4.6 5.6 30.3 City of Owen Sound 125.2 ------125.2 - - 125.2 Township of Southgate 16.3 ------16.3 5.8 - 22.2 Municipality of West Grey 1.3 - - 7.8 - - - - - 9.1 8.6 - 17.8 Grey County 260.0 - - 7.8 - - - - - 267.9 28.2 36.2 332.2 1There are no MPAC vacant codes currently in the Hanover Special Policy Area yet it has been included in a manner consistent with OPA19. *Agricultural includes OP layers: Agricultural, Special Agricultural and Niagara Escarpment **This total includes the Rural and Agricultural. Vacant Land Supply - Summary County of Grey Based on MPAC vacant land codes and Municipal land-use designations
Vacant Land Supply Vacant Land Supply Town of The Blue Mountains - County of Grey Municipality of Meaford - County of Grey Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Municipal OP Designations Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Municipal OP Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential 185.1 53.3 5.9 244.3 1,055.1 1,299.4 Residential 204.9 5.3 - 210.2 2,332.4 2,542.5 Commercial 1.3 4.3 - 5.6 - 5.6 Commercial 0.4 2.8 - 3.2 0.3 3.4 Industrial - - 28.9 28.9 - 28.9 Industrial 5.5 8.0 13.3 26.8 14.1 41.0 Total 186.4 57.6 34.8 278.8 1,055.1 1,333.9 Total 210.8 16.0 13.3 240.2 2,346.7 2,586.9
Vacant Land Supply Vacant Land Supply Township of Chatsworth - County of Grey City of Owen Sound - County of Grey Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Municipal Zoning Designations Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Municipal Zoning Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential 100.5 10.4 12.8 123.7 2,418.1 2,541.8 Residential 163.5 1.1 5.5 170.2 - 170.2 Commercial - 0.2 - 0.2 - 0.2 Commercial 0.0 11.6 18.1 29.7 - 29.7 Industrial 1.4 - 6.0 7.4 33.8 41.2 Industrial - 4.4 132.2 136.6 - 136.6 Total 101.9 10.6 18.7 131.3 2,451.9 2,583.2 Total 163.5 17.1 155.8 336.5 - 336.5
Vacant Land Supply Vacant Land Supply Township of Georgian Bluffs - County of Grey Township of Southgate - County of Grey Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Municipal Zoning Designations Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Municipal Zoning Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential 363.6 7.0 18.9 389.5 1,258.4 1,647.9 Residential 48.7 2.4 13.4 64.4 132.3 196.7 Commercial 0.0 9.8 - 9.8 0.1 9.9 Commercial 0.5 1.0 0.1 1.6 - 1.6 Industrial - - 43.9 43.9 - 43.9 Industrial 2.3 - 43.0 45.3 3.5 48.9 Total 363.6 16.8 62.8 443.1 1,258.5 1,701.6 Total 51.5 3.4 56.5 111.3 135.8 247.1 Note: Zoning code 'Residential Type 6' is shown above as Residential - Rural.
Vacant Land Supply Vacant Land Supply Municipality of Grey Highlands - County of Grey Municipality of West Grey - County of Grey Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Zoning Designations Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Municipal OP Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential 364.2 0.6 4.5 369.3 2,483.2 2,852.5 Residential 66.8 1.2 11.9 79.9 3,722.1 3,802.0 Commercial 104.1 0.6 1.2 105.9 1.9 107.8 Commercial 0.6 0.5 - 1.1 0.3 1.4 Industrial - - 17.2 17.2 56.4 73.6 Industrial 0.1 7.8 1.4 9.3 22.0 31.3 Total 468.3 1.2 22.9 492.4 2,541.4 3,033.9 Total 67.4 9.6 13.3 90.3 3,744.4 3,834.7
Vacant Land Supply Vacant Land Supply Town of Hanover - County of Grey Sum of All Municipalities Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Municipal OP Designations Based on MPAC Land-use Codes & Municipal Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations MPAC Municipal Land-use Designations Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential Commercial Industrial Sub-total Rural Total Residential 94.0 8.4 0.1 102.5 - 102.5 Residential 1,591.3 89.8 72.9 1,754.0 13,401.5 15,155.5 Commercial 0.0 19.4 - 19.4 - 19.4 Commercial 106.9 50.2 19.4 176.4 2.5 179.0 Industrial - 0.1 56.2 56.3 - 56.3 Industrial 9.3 20.3 342.1 371.8 129.9 501.6 Total 94.1 27.9 56.3 178.3 - 178.3 Total 1,707.5 160.3 434.4 2,302.2 13,533.9 15,836.1 Note: There are no MPAC vacant codes currently in the Hanover Special Policy Area yet it has been included in a manner consistent with OPA19.
Note: All draft approved plans have been netted out of the totals above. Vacant Land Supply - Notes to Summary County of Grey Based on MPAC vacant land codes and Municipal land-use designations
Selected Municipal Land-use Designations MPAC Land Use Township of Codes Chatsworth Township of Georgian Bluffs Municipality of Grey Highlands Town of Hanover Municipality of Meaford City of Owen Sound Township of Southgate Town of The Blue Mountains Municipality of West Grey County of Grey Lake Residential General Residential Development Residential Settlement Area General Residential Mobile Home Park Estate Residential Inland Lakes & Shoreline Escarpment Recreation Multiple Residential Inland Lakes & Shoreline Residential Residential Special Policy Areas 1 and 3 Shoreline Residential Low Density Residential Residential Type 1-6 Low, Med Density Residential Primary Inland Lakes & Shoreline Rural Residential Med-High Density Residential Residential Multiple Urban Living Area Medium Density Residential Primary Residential Residential Primary Tent & Trailer Med Density Residential Residential Shoreline Multiple Residential Recreational Residential Secondary Recreational Resort Residential Urban Residential Mobile Home Park Rural Residential Single Residential Residential (Thornbury) Tertiary Secondary (100,110,112) Tent & Trailer Campground Residential Infilling Space Extensive Commercial Resort Residential Space Extensive Industrial Secondary Residential Tertiary Shoreline Residential Village Residential General Commercial General Commercial Downtown Commercial Corridor Commercial Downtown Core Commercial Arterial Commercial Campground Commercial Blue Mt. Resort Commercial Downtown Commercial Escarpment Recreation Local Commercial Rural Commercial HWY & Service Commercial Downtown Commercial Rural Highway Commercial Core Commercial General Commercial Commercial (Thornbury) Highway Commercial Inland Lakes & Shoreline Rural Commercial Space Extensive Commercial NHBD & Convenience Large Format Commercial Urban Highway Commercial Mixed Use Commercial Highway Commercial Harbour Commercial (Thornbury) Space Extensive Commercial Primary Commercial NHBD & Convenience Commercial Recreational Commercial Neighbourhood Commercial Local Commercial Highway Commercial Recreational Resort (105) Rural Commercial Restricted Commercial Industrial Retail Commercial Recreational Commercial Recreational Commercial Secondary Special Policy Areas 1 and 2 Space Extensive Commercial Village Commercial Space Extensive Commercial Space Extensive Industrial Tertiary Extractive Industrial Extractive Industrial Extractive Industrial Industrial Urban Employment Area General Industrial Extractive Industrial Community Industrial (Thornbury) Industrial Escarpment Recreation General Industrial General Industrial Heavy Industrial Special Policy Areas 1, 2 and 3 Heavy Industrial General Industrial Employment Lands Space Extensive Industrial Inland Lakes & Shoreline Local Industrial Light Industrial Mixed Use Industrial Extractive Industrial Primary Rural Industrial Recreational Resort Industrial (106) Secondary Space Extensive Commercial Space Extensive Industrial Tertiary Rural General Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Commercial Rural Rural Rural Rural* Rural Industrial Rural Employment Lands
*For each municipality that has a rural area, all vacant MPAC land-use codes were applied (100,110,112,105,106) to the selected designations and were counted as Rural on the Summary page. 19 Road Grey d 21 Roa Grey
d d
t Roa a in o ng Po
Lo R
a
t r
e
r e
n
e
e
t
r a
t
n
L
d S o
s a '
s
M
y e o n
h v R
o i
p r
s
o
m D r e
v m
B i g
n a d T i oa C R n sion c is n i M a n ne C Li e nd c 2
t 9 d
r
s 1 S
o
a
e d
E G n
a
a
o
d l
i
y L
a a
R
a
o n
Tr
y
W
R a o e
i
e
r t
l s
e n r
o r G
o
r e
l o n
y t
o h t i
s T e K
e d S
k a
a
d
o
L r
a e ine
o d L
d 3r
i
R
d
S
h
a
t
e
i
h
o
t
n
e
l
2 y R
a
a
g 1 L
i ne
e
i w L
W
a rd
n a 3
o
r
i
l
n
l a
e d C
o
L
p
n
s
H
a e
A l
c
y
p
S
p
a
e
M
e
l
S
d
a
o
R 9
1
a
t l
ine d a
A 4th L
o
R
d
a
y
o
e
r
R
G
e
k
a
L
n
e
d
d d
i a
Draft Approved Plans Residential Commercial Industrial Rural
H
o
r
e
d
i S
Line
e h th t 5
v i 8 r
D 1
s Vacant Land Supply Vacant of The Blue Mountains - Grey County Town li
l 6
E 2
y
a w
h ine
g L
i 6th H
d a Line o 6th
R 9
ne 1 Li 1 re
6th
o d
h e a
s v
o i
e r R
k
D
a y
L y e
r h d t
l G o r
O
o
e
D
n
a
L
r
e
v
o
d o
e a
v H
i o r r
D e
d
d e i
o Lin S
th
o 7 h
w t
e 2
k 1 a
L
e
n
a
L
d tt
a e
c 2 d
o oad R R a
rey G o
e aw
r F
o er
d h i
S
S
e t
k s
a 1 L 2
t s
a t s d E a
t a E o e
e t r
tr e e
e d r i S t
y S S a
g h t B t
n i 4
e e K 2
iv e r
r d t
D a
S
o
e t ine r
r s k h L e
o r 10t
e 0
h d
i
la
s 4
W
S
e C
k t t d
a a e s h
e t
L e o r t 2
t
t
W s R t 1
S e
t t e s t
t
ee y r tr e
e e e S
r
e
u W rsh e
e a t e t M r
h r W e
r t t
t t e r S G
r t S e e
S e et t in
r a L e
A S th
t e d
e s 1
r 1
n r t
c S t e a
ild
n
i d o l t
o
S S
h
r a
d W
A a
e e r R
o
e t o n
r e r
n f i e J M
m l o n e
a p e t
a l
A r w
L a d
t i u
C o
f N S t
S
f F
u n b
a
l h a t
B
c Sl 8
n 3
1
h 1
g i Du d
H a o
e
R v
i
y
r d
e D a
r
6 o
r e G
2 k e
a d y d
i a
L a t
o S
e
r w
e
e
h h
t r
g d t
i i 0
S
e 3 n S i e H
th L v
11 n
i d i r r
a D 3
3 M d e line r g wn
e To
a d sia i n
v ra
i ph l u d e R -E
l s n n i a t nta u u
o o s w M
o lue e o B e R
B h T T l
t W i
ine t
e nl a
n d ow
s T rd e
a afo M
n e c
o s-M
u d
r in
ta n l un i
S e Mo
e V O
d lu
i B
The t
S
S C
-
2 h
t a 9
2 i
9 1
s
d
3
d
d
a
5 d
r
a
a
2 a
oa h
o
o
r
o
r
r
p
d
r
t e
e
e
u
a
e
e d
d
d
i
o
i
E d i
e i r
S
r S
S
e
t S
d
4
S 7 i
et
r e r Str S e C Foste d Lin
ke 3r
r
a B Grey Road 12 Road Grey
ine A
1th L 3 e 1 1 an
n L
d o
d ilt
A
9
a am
a H 6
1 o
A o
1
r
R 2 d
e
e 0 d
2
Lin a
0 n
h d
t 4
5
a e 1 i
1 o n
li
1 o
d n
r
i 2 o w
S o
d d
t T
a
e
d d
n n a
a la
d l o er
d o a
H o o i
r -
o
i
a a d i
via
o s R
i a
e
r
S s r
o h
R p
e u
d
r
d
S E
s e
i
o
y D 0 e
e 4 d
o d S
i a e d
c ro i
r w de
S i
n
e S
S l
G
t o
4 s
i
C d
h
a T
o
d 6
r
e oa
e n
d o i
in i
s
S L
Sider s
t k
0 e e
e d 80 c
6 n c
e i a a
r n t L d B
o
S k a t o
R o s
r 3 C
2
a ac e e ad
n
d o
3 d R
m B i g
o W l
l 1 a e
1 t S n
s e
d n l
A sio o G
s 0 b
a e as c 8 R
n 7
d
o o
o C E
r
a n
e
R
e 9
o
o 2 0 k
ad 1 i
2
d o n
R io a i R
ey ss s 1
r e
L
G l c s
S n
l o
i C
e n
s
'
c
l o
m
l
i
n
a
s e
0
s
H 4 B
h
t Co e
r
d
c
a n No
o
th o
Sou d
n R a
io C s
es o nc r
Co y
nd e
2 e d
r i ad S o
R
G n
0 rsto 5 e Trav on 9 d 3 si e a
es
nc n o d o i
C d R a L
a o d
o k r e
r c
ve o n i e
i R a f h
r l t L
d l w th B u i
d D i ou
a t a o S 0
o d h 1
S R r M s r a d
n S o a
c o
e o R r v d s e
a l a C n t id
th d a
a y a er S r t u
E a e
St a o V
o
D
r
T R
e
n
d
h e i
out o
S v s
n i S
io
ss r b
e ad
c 0
n o
o D o
C 5 h r
4t r R
o de d l i
y a
a S
o
T 0 r
3
ne e e e
Li lin id
n se
i Ba l
k 4
S
n
1
ac 0
w
d
n B 6
a
d
o
24 t o
h o
t i T r a
o d r s
N d s
ad a e e e o
d n
o i r
s
R d el o i B
s oa 3 s
n a
n W e
a n e B r R S io
te s a
d
e s c
e l V i
0 c
e n l
n th R th o
d
2 C
S
u o
a o h
ut d or
o o
s
S r H
6 r '
C
n w
o -
si
s e e
e k
c ts 2
g
d n
o d l c P i
C a
i
th 1 a 6
h
S e
o
C m
d
n
0
r r
1 a
e 2
e
l n
io o 6
ss o
d
e
i c C
G n
d
o R
d
e C c
S
a n a
i y
M
o
o
L e
r r
k R e
c 10 G n
2 d
i
a l
y d n
i sio
t a s B S
a e K c n e
t n 3
o o
e s iv C
e
A c
3 r d d
a R
n s ghw
io a
s i D a m
s e E
k i ce r o
on H e o
e r L
C C R
d
e i e
e
r
r s e
d
i
th o y k
ou r a C
S G t S
ion L s o
es d n
onc u s r
C a e R
8th o g
o m
n
e
i C G
3 a l R
N
n lli
d i W e e
a
i
d
w
o W d s
r a
o d
s e
a
o
T
R
a
d r
a
i o
o r
e G S
m
M
e d 6
2 y R i
a
n a W
io w d
h i
s
g k h s t i
ce S H
d
n d c
S
n
o e
r
C
a
a
e
e
e
e
h
r o
o
b
t
d
k
t
l r
r
l
y 9
e e
S e B
e a
d
S
d d
n 9
i
-
i
a
e
W
a W
r d
d
o
S d S
L t
a
n
a
r n R
0
d
o
a
e o e
r l
1
r l
y d
R
n l 3
o C
i
e o
ss e
ce l E k n l
d R H r
h Co i G 10t a W
a 2 d
S n
V io
s P
es a
c y n
2C Co o o n
n io
t ss R
ce 5
n n
o Co
2
u k
M
c S
t d e
tree a line
B b e o s S l
xa sion 2 Ba
e B s
ra ce R
af on
4 C
ar y
G W
d
d e
r a
a
o
t
o G
r e
R R
e d ND e re
d a t o
0 i r
& 1 k Side S 6 S
y a h hwa 30t
ig L n
H
o
h
i
g
s
i
u R e
v 4
i A
n o
2 v
o D
i l n s i
h io es l D t r
ou ss 0 nc S e o N
d c C u
a n 4 o o D
R C
y
C
lle 4
6
d
Va y
c
y
n 1
n r
u a
S t
d
M
n o
n
a
o
u
R
i o
r s
o d
y a e
s Ro C
e k
d c e
1 r
i ulo
6 c M
S G n
d o
essi n
a c
on o
8 C
o
y C 1
rb r
De
n 3 e d
sio 7 s d
e i
a onc
C d
o
S
a
R o
A
5 r
y n
sio e
e es r
nc d
Co i
G S NDR road Side
A 20th
9
d
by a
er A
D R 5 ro on 4
si D ces e
on d d
C N
i a
7A
S o
sion n 8 0
es r io
nc ess 1
Co e Conc
3
n
d
i
3
o
i d
S
d s
a
s
a
o
6
r
e
o
1
r
e c
e
d n 6
d
i
d
o
a i
d S
o
C S
ion 8 a R s
es o c
Con r
y
e 5
e
d
i
d
R
a S
Gr D o 7
ion N
R ss
nce 8
o 2
y C
1
e
d
r
a
n
G
o o
i
r
s
e e
s
d
n
R
i i
e
6
l
D c
S
n
d
n
N
w
a
o
o
4 o
C r
1
T
e
5
n n R
d D i
2 N
a
o
d
i a
v
S ro
d
i e
s 2 d
l Si
l a
s 5th
d u o
ad 3 e
o a
c
S
y R R
e -
r
G n
ro
k
y
o
e c
3
e
C 2 r
d
1 n i
on i
d si
s t
e G
5 c
S
a n 0
Co n
o 4
d
e
r
a
B
d e
o
a d
r
i
o
e
S
d
R
i
9
5
y S 0
1 d d
e a
d o r
a e R
a uc o r
G B
r
Draft Approved Approved Draft Plans o Residential Commercial Industrial Rural
e
R
d
i
y
S e r 11 G ssion once n 13 C essio Line Conc Bruce Grey- Vacant Land Supply Vacant of Chatsworth - Grey County Township e riv h D Nort r sion u onces
bo 0 2nd C
r 3
3 a
H d
d
6
a
7 a
8 2
o
2
o
r
d y
a r
e
d a
o e
r 4
d
a
d
e i w i
d 2 o
i
h S r
S S
d
g
e
i
6
a
2
d
i
H o
2 d
r
S
a
e
d
o
d
a r
ne i
o
e a S L r
d i
ro e
d
S a i nj a S uth
m th n So
i h r io
il t No ss
r sion nce
K o s o
8 nce h C N t
e 6
1 Co
v h
i t
n 5
r
d o
D
a si
s e A
o r
n
r o ce
h
n
io e
s s
d o s
i C
ke
e
a
c
S h
t
L
n
-
6
o
m
C
a
h
n
th
e r
d o
y
N S
on d
i
a
s
o
s
R 1
e 1
d
c a e o
r y R
o re
on G h
s 5
y d
a 1
th C th
5 a B
8 1
d o
d
a a R
o
o
r
R k
r
e y
e
e a n d
r i
P G
S La
n k
o n o o
cessi
o n
ms Co
o th
B 10 h
T y
r
m m
o
o
t T ast
e E S venu
8th A t
2 e
st
t
e
a
r
s
t
E a
Road
ge S
n 8
n Ra t
rgia
E
Geo t
r
1
e
s
t
o
e
i
a
d 0 e r 1
d r &
t 6
a e E y
a
e a
re
w
S h
v o
t
t ig
s i p H
s r
e
R
S
h u
a Ro
t
e P D
- S y
r
h 6
y e t
r t
l
e
B i 1
a ' r 0
S
e
l
d
u a 2
b w o
t G
h
R
s
m q
h t
h
a
e
s c
ad a
o s E
R 8 0
ock K
R
le e
d Kemb I 1
d B d
e e
d a
2 d
y o
a
a r u R
o
a m s
l l n R l
a a
o a
y F n P e
e o B is
r
v l
o g
G In o
R A
r
i
R
d
e r
s
d
e
1 3 d
t t
e s s
t a
s d d e
e
a o a
i r W
W o
e
e
p
a d e
e R u i
o u n
y
S y
n e
S
e b
l v
e r
v l a
c r
v A e
e
i G
A h D
v t
R 3 d 4
r a
r r
n n
3
C C io
d
oa r s
de
i s
S A o
ay
B e g o P i
B n
e nc n
i o
l 7 C
yl n
C
w
o 1 e
so T v a
i
l
r 5
e
D
p
d
T
p
d d
w
r
e
a
K
a t
d d 1
-
h
e
k a
a c
e r
a
r
o t 2
O a w
S
a o
r
D s a
R r o e S
d
&
R m
o
a
S R
e y
6
a
y t
o
w
e
g k
e
r y
r
t
a e y
6
4 R
S
n P
r
e
d k
a
t
r
n
2 e a r
a a
l y
e d
r P
r
G t
e w
h S d t
a R t
G
n u s
h S
e
n
n o
W
o g s o
i
d r i ' u r
0 o
y s G L e
H
d 1
o s
d
i
a
d p e
l n
o
S
a c
o o
i
o
n
R
r
C
e
o
ss
e d
n
i
C
e
d l
o
i
2
c
n
o
S
1
n
w d w o
s
d
o n
' a
a
C T
e h
o
l
o
c
d
R r
e
n n
i
e i
Road e p
e d
tr L
en K
C p d i
e 7
i ion e s
v s u S e
i onc
r
K C
e G -
v
i
D r l
y
D
0
r
s i
i 5 b
e c 7
n r
a
r G
k
1 d
F d
e
a a a
d o D
L r
o
a e 6
n d
i R
o
i y
S
4
a R a y
t 0
20
road 1 e
Side D 1 w
ad y
Ro n ake r
Gleason L h
n C
e u
t
G r g
i
o N io
e
G
s H d
e 2 M
a
r
s
t
n o
4 e r
S 3
o e
2 d
c i ad 115 a
d ro o
ide
i S R
d s y
n e
1 r S r n G
s
o
2 a
o e 5 l
i d 1 l a
C c Ro s
n n a n kso
s 15 c
o 3 a
oad J 9
i ider o M
S
e
s
C d c
s
a
n
l
e
o
o
c e
r
C
n p
e
o
p
d
i
e
7
C
S
1
K
t
d
e 3
21 a e
ad r 11 o n
d ch R n
o n Chur t sio
a io e
Z o es
i c S ay
o n
R
A
n o
C s i
R n 5
y s
i L
l
l
i e
a e
n
r ghw
A
c i
M o M 2
i
G n
H d
1
s d
l
D 5
o
2 s
6 a O
d
C
1 d e
o
7
a
NC a
c
1
o R
o n
r n
2
r d
o e
a k n
o i
e d
i
n o
c
s
o
d
S C
i
o R
i
s i o
oad l
s r l
Side s
's o n S
pso e
om s
Th o
s B
c
e e h ne
n c Li e
c c e
S c t
o ru c
n n -B i
e e rey
C o n
o G
d
e l o
r C t
C
t u S d 10
o oa
S Bruce R
h
m S
l ighway 6 E H Bluffs - Grey County Residential Commercial Industrial Rural Vacant Land Supply Vacant of Georgian Township
e
n 4 i
ad 12 l o n
rey R
G w
o
T
y
9
e
r
d
p
a
s
o
O e
- R
n
i
t
n
l
y
n
o
n
e
e h r
t w
c
c G
o
s
n T
e
r a
s l
C
d n e
i
a
e
a
M
l t o
r
g n
4
e
a u
d
d
o i
E
B
a
B
S 67
M
d o e
oa
r R
n
e
R
i a
l
u
L
l C
y
p
e
B
o e
e
r
r
ghlands - Grey County
t
P 3 n
e 6
i
G ad
o n
h R L
e
T
- 9 h
1 C
t
ad y
o u
R e
B
y r o
re d
G p
S
a
ine n
d L s
l
o 2n
l io
r
i
O
s
e
H
s
d
i
e 1 s
'
c
S
3 B
d
7
5 i n
n ad
h d o
e R
o o t
i
a
d
2
R
s C
o
1
e s
h
R
in oa
L e t
3rd r
c
8 y
e
e
n
e
d
n
i r e o
Lin e
a rd n
G 3 C
i
S
L
l
h D h
n 7 t
e 5 d t
l oa 6
w R 0
p
o
1
a 5
T d 5
oa
M R
d e s
a n n
i i e l
Lin o
a
r
h n
t n
4 t
9
e o
n i w
1
d
s
i u o
s
d
o d
Draft Approved Approved Draft Plans Residential Commercial Industrial Rural S T
e a
a
y
M
d d c
o
o
r 9
4 e
r
n d r
e a R
3 o
B
e R
o
p u
l
y d
s
C i n
B e
o
r S O
i
e d
n
i -
e
L r
h d s
t a
G
h
5 o n
h
R 3 t
s r
e
v o i
e T 8 R
in e
Vacant Land Supply Vacant Municipality of Grey Hi
L -
h h
c
1 t
6 t
y
n c
e
o r n
a p
C
l
s e
ne h i t
h L O d 2
6t oa M 4 R
6th Line Grey
B
A
e
n
e
i
n
d 5
4 L
d i
a
a o
R L
A
h
o
t
r
e
n
u
r
e A
t
o 1 e
4 o i
B
d ad n
n i
o i
s R S
e
n L S
d 2 s
oa
e
R C k
y io h
re d
c c t
G s
a a
n 2 s
o
o B 1 e
r t
c
e
C s
n
d a i
B h
o 1
4 t
d d E
S oa
8 C d
R a
a
h
o
t h
o
r
t r
9
e e
2
d
d
i
1 i
S
S
0
t
0
s
2
1 d
6
2
d a d
e 2
lin a o a n
w d
r Line To o o
a a
th d si
r e 0
1 r e
m o
a te
0
d e r
e A R
i y-
o 9
re d
r p
i
1
s e id
S O
t
e
d
S a S
h
d
a g
t i
o h h h
t
8 t t
S
R
u
1 2 6
o
9 h
1 t
ad S
1 ro 9 de
1 Si
C 35
7 d d
e a
d n o
a a n
R
B
o
L o
r
3 i
y
e
s s 1
e
d g
e s r
i
D n l
d i i
l e
d
0 l S G
a
c
e e
a
1 W o
w n n r
o
i e d o
l l e
R
a F n
C d
d oa i
r
o e
e
w id
d r S e
h
S 0
g
t 3
o n a
i 0 d
d T 8
de
i 8 o L
i A a 1 e a
n o
R i
R k i
S L d
3r 4 c d l
s R
x
i a a C
a
d o
a o
r B m 2
t
a R r F P o i n
t
R o a
h d t
2 M e
o a
s p
B e F
d a e R d
r
in u
l
t L t r
rd E 0
E
3 y a
e
O S 7
oa
- e
e o
t 1
r e e
t
n
a r
r i
i
r n e B e
t i d L
C s G
e a
d
e e L
i n
i S
r
o
L e k
B
b d 0
3r t k
S c
R
7
o d 1
m c
S a r
3
1 u a
e y d
D d n B
t
e a k
a
in o B a a
r
L r t R a
rd n
3 y t s o w e a
A r r
r s C
G h e
P a e A g
i W
t E d
i
oad H 0
R S
6
S lley
a 1
B
er V
0 3
d w d a 0 o
R
y o e r
e B G L
in a
L 1
4th o
R
d
l
l
t a i
e
o
e H
r
r
t d
e a s o
S e R
d 32 ak
i ad ox L
m' o c
m il
R d C W i n d y L W
a n e S D
r y i v
e e a a r
G a
6
h
o
h B
7 r
d 1
a R
a
u
o
0
R
r e
ey B n
D
r d
1
B
G n
i o
G
a
d 2
o
d L
o g 2 a
r a
k a
o
e o L d c
r
a R d a
i
e B 2 o
3
S
d
r
t m i 1
A
e s 0
a
d S
a 4
h
e a id
1
e r
E o
e n
S in
i
L d n u
th d R i 7 a a l
ero L D
Sid o e
15 s h R
t
0 a
u
3 B
n o
d
o
S 0 i
a 1
o
ss
y 0
R
a 3
1 ce
0 y w
d
2 n
h A e
a
1
r o
e g
n n
Li i o e
th d C
G o 9 R
a H n i
o l
si d
A e
R
s
n
4 s
2
9 a
A
d 5 ce
A
1 B
7
a
2 n
0 t
o d
o
d
1 e
d r
d
a
a
e B C
a 0 e
a
d
r o
o
1
6
t o
r
o
a r
h id
1
r
1 t
e
S
e o e
R
e
S d
4
r
d
n
d
d a
i
s
d
i
i
e
e i
l
o
a
s
S
k d
S
n S
R i o
12 o
a r
d r
a w e
o S lin R L
e
y wn n o
Gre To i
d lg
T e
i n K
a-Gle S i
ish
a es
i
r m
0 12 rte
I A ad s
4 Ro
a
rey t r
G s d
h e
a
4
p
W o
u n t
R
6
e
o
E
i
e
-
y
r
A
n
s t
a
e
i 3
s
o
S
r
i
s
1 e
e n s
n
i i G L e
h c t s 11 d a ne
a n
e d m a L
M n
o
A
2
o c a
e lt
o i
t m
r
6 1
n
a C
o r A
H
4
e 1
o
2
A R d
d
2 i
0
d C a d
n ne
i 1 a
a l
S n
d
ow d
io o
o T
a
Ro
a d t n
r n a
ll o
R
o o
a o
e 0
H y
i - i 4 r
ia R d
s a
d a e
y
v
r s o
e r i h
d
up r ide s
e
e E
o S d
S
r i e G
o e
D n 10
S i c w G
L e n
l
8
e
ay t
d
k o
s n
d i
c i n a
C
hw h
a a
L o o
T i
g r
o B i s
h
e t
t
d H R s
s d
r
d
a
i
e a a
n o o
r
o c
S E
o r
e
N
n
s e 3
d 2 0
i
d o d
i a
b o
6 S R
S C g o l
e
0 en
0 l R 7 G 8
4
d
a
o
R
y
e
r
G
R
D
S
2
n
o
i
s
s
e
t
c
e
n
e
o
r
t
C
S
h
t
0
1
4
d
a
o
R
y
e
r G
d 28 Roa
Grey
d
a
R
o D
ue R
en
N v
A e
th l
24 l 2
i ne
eu v
n Av
th p
o 4
i 2 p
s a
e t
s u n
ven e
e A e
th K r
c 24
e t
n nu
e S o v
rd A h
C 23 t 2
1 nue Ave t 2nd t 2
e
t e
e e
r e
t
r
t
e
t
r
S e t
S
e
h S r
t
t
h t
7 h
S
t
5
1
6
1 e
h u t n 1 ve
4 th A 1 e 0 u 2 n ue A e ven v e 1st A A enu 2 t nue Av venue
s Ave 18th 16th A t
t e 1 19th n
u 2 e
e n e
r c e e
v e u t
s u en
A v S
e A
t n
r h
t t
s e 7 A
1
v s C 1 t
A 1 t 2
h e e
t
t e
r
e 8
e
t
r 1 e
t u
e e n
u S e
n r v
S e
v t A h A th
7t d 4
S e 1
h 1
t u
t
ven n e
t
h
7 A A 2
t th
e t t e
1 5
r 1 8
e t
e e
r u
e n t
S ve
A h
tr h
t
e S 3t
h t u 1
n h t
u A
e t
e v t
A d
t 1 o t t r
th u
e
5 e 1
e
e e
th S th 1
r 3 o S
e
t
e
e e
3 t
t
S
r
r r tr
S
t
1 e t t
e
t
h
e h
e
e
u S
t
t S S
S h
n e
r
e
r
t v
t
u
t
u A h
e
h h
t h h
2 t
4 r
t
o
o t t
1 S t S
6 1
6
5 7
S
S
S
h
h
t
t t t
d
4
e 4 e t
r e e e
e u
3 n r
r ve t t
e h A
e r 0t S t
nu S 1
e ve
u t
8
S
n t A
e d
v th
A s
2 2
h e 1
t n
3 d
1 1
t r e
2
d
r
e 3
t
a t
e
S e o e
r u
n
t e
v e R A
h h
t S t
11 tr
y
0
S
h
e
t 1
d
9
Gr
n
t
2
e
e
t
r
t t
e
e
S e
r e
e t
u r
n h
t
ve t
A S
h 6
0t S
1
h
t
t
h
t e
5
A
8 e
r
t t
e e
S nu
t e e
Av t
h r e
h t t
9 e
t
e
e
S
3 r
r
t
e t
1 u h
en t S t
v S
A e
h
8t 6
h
e
h
t
r t
t 4
nue 7
1 e v S th A 8 e d enu r
Av 3 ue 6th Aven 8th nue e Ave venu
th 6th th A r t 5
enue No v e
8th A nue t e e
v e
r h A e t t 6 enu e e v r u
S A t en
5th Av
S h h t
4
t
h 3
e t u 1 n 5 Ave ue t th n e
7 Ave t e th n
4 r
t e
c S
s t
h e
e t r ue
e 7 n
C 0 r e
e 1 u t v
oad ven t A R S d ce rd A e 2n
ru 3 e B h r
8t St
h t
4 Draft Approved Plan Residential Commercial Industrial Area (OPA19) Special Policy Vacant Land Supply Vacant - Grey County of Hanover Town
ne d i a
10th L 3
1
e ro
d
v 6 e
i d
a
r d
2 i
a o
D o d
y t S
r
R
t a
a
e e e
s
o
y e
w d r
1 i r
ak e
h t e
r
2
L S
ig d S e i n G
Li
d th h
11 t
r H S n
i
e
v
i 0
a r
D
y
d a a
v B
3 a r r o
e L
l 3 M u C
3 ne i 2
o Townl
B ord 2 af
t s-Me in d
e ounta M a s Blue n The
u ro
S e
d
t
i
e
S e
r eet
t Str
Foster S
r e
s ine D
a 3rd L
r F
6 e 2 Lin
3rd d Line B y a 4th
a o r d
w e a eaford - Grey County
h o d i
g R
i S il
a
H
4 M d l ld e O O u
n
e 5
v 2
A d
t a
n
7 o ad r
a y Ro
e e r r
t G
d t
e
G i
e
e
S
e r
e
t
t r
ree n t
St i
t S
en l
inc d
V S
St n
n
a r
Draft Approved Draft Plans Residential Commercial Industrial Rural i w
h
o
u o
r o
t T J
e e
tre M t
S d
ok i
o n
C t
S
e
ce
e 7
r n i
d t
a V
o S
R t
Vacant Land Supply Vacant Municipality of M dge r
i e S
R l
- l
i
a
i
M
s
a
r
h
p
u 2
Line E
7th d 1
a e
u
n
e
d Av
r o
a
d
e
r
C
a
0 d
e
o
4 a
d d
i o R
d a
r 2
S d 1 y a
o a
e Ro
r rey e
G o 3 d
r i e
1
R
d
S
G i
d y
d
S 7
a e
a
r
o 2
o
r
r G 2
e
e
d
d i
i 12
1 S
S d oa
rey R
G 0 5
1
2 d
a 1th Line o 1
R
d
n
a
o
i o
t r
d
a
e
i
a
d
v
i o
d r
e
d S
a
e e
n d D
a th Li o 6
d 11
a
i o
r
d 1 r
o
e S
r a
e
d
e
o i d
5
i
r
d
2
S
i
e S
S
d
8
i
2
4 2 S
3 t
y 1 e
Line a e
12th nline tr w ow am T S
k denh r y NATIONAL DEFENCE CANADA NATIONAL t-S a
cen 3 a n
t Vi
S lm d P
A a t
d
t
o
r
a
r
o e o
nlin e
Tow h
d
am R
h i
n
de S
y l
-S
nt l e S
inc i
t V d n S l
5 essio nc m
a t Co
r s 1
1 a
e d
H
a
G o
r South e ession
d onc i C line 2nd
wn S 9 ham To Road 2 t-Syden Grey Vincen n South St ncessio
2nd Co
e
n
i l
e n
riv w
D rth r To
No 6 u on
o 0 ssi
b nce 2
o
r 3 C
d m
a 2n 3 y
a
H
d
a
h d a
B
w
n
a
o
h r n e
uth o r
o o
g
8 e S d
i n
i sio
d s e
s d e
a nc y
i o
H C
s o 4th d r i S
S e e
d - S
c i
S d
n
n
o orth
N a
7 n l
C sio s l
2 nce
2 Co
o
h
2 4t
d
H
4
d
a
2
a
o
r o
d
r
e
a
e
e d th
i
o or d
v o Lane N
i r
r i sion
r s S
a nce 8
e o h
S C
h 6 out
5t 1 S
anj n d D sio
m i ces i d
e l n
i d h Co S t
g 6
K rth a
No a
d n io o i s
es o
th Conc r R e
R 8 5
e
1 d
l
y
i
e
g
d v e
i S
r r
a a
D
E
A e G
ro r
n
e o o
h i
s
s id rth e o
s n N k
e ssio S a
c nce L
n Co - h
o 6t
m
C
23 a h
n
e
ad d
o y
r S
d th
h ou t
a e S
r n
o sio
d o es
R i nc
N Co
e 8th
r
S n
o
o
i
h
s
s
s
y
e a
c
B n
o ad 11
C Ro
y
re d
h G
t
a
8 5
o
1
R 5
d
1
a d k
a r
o o
d r
a R
6
y a
e P
re
o d d
i
G k
a
R
e
S
o
n o
a
r o y L
e
n e
B l
o
l
d
s A
n i io y
m ess ion a c r s
o n es
o nc S
h C
o V
o C
T th
0
t 1
y
m
S o
n
T n
t u as S enue E
28th Av t
t t
t
s
e s
s
a
e a
a
r
E
t
E E
t t
t S
t
e
e
r
t e
e
e
o
s
r
e
i r
t
r
t
r a
t
d e
E
S 0
d S
e S 1
a &
p
a 6
t
o y
v h a
h w
t
i R h
u
h g
i
o t
e H
t
e
r 6
e 0
v S
o e
R i
r 6
h t
D r 2
s 2
S e
a t
s 1
E
e
e y e
e
a l L
u
c S
ar Dr i n B
M
' e
t t v
A s
h u a
h t
9
E t
t s
hw e Ea
d nu
a ve 8
s o h A sq t
R 7 I
h t
c
e a
e as
r B
d
y a
E o
1
R
m l
d lls a
P a
ue a o
B F
R s n
li
y g
e n e I
r
v t
G as
A E
ue
d n
r ve
3 2nd A
t
d
1
d t
d s
a
a e s
o
o
a r W
e
R e
d u
i
y n
e S e e
r v o l
l A G
e h v 4t a R C W t y es rb t W e
t ue 3 D
n en n
A s v io
et h A ss
6t ce 6 o
e n
7 e e
o n i
l C
n
s tr
w 1 ree
o d
e T
t v l
i
e
r W
p
D
w p
a
d e
r d S a
K S
a t -
h k
a c o
a h
r 5
w
O a
t
a e r
r e
p
a e
h l
r S
D o t
e t S e s s A d r
r e
7 m R t d o a
2 S i
S o
y
S
e t
R e
y h
a e
r
t
w r t k
S
r
a k
r
P y
a
d 0
G P n
t a
l
r e
e
3 ree y t
h b
t r r
S
u e
t D S
5 es
n n
o io W d s
r s G e o nc G Co 38 d a o
der i
S
15
oad
R d
a
rey
o
G
R
k
r
a
6
2 P
5
y
k 1
a o
d
o
w
a
B
h
o
r
g
y
i
e r
H
d o
i
t
S S
on A
cessi
e on
n C
a
L
n
o
s
m
o
h
T
m
o T ssion
once 1 C
10th 2
d
a
o
r
e
d
i S
st ue Ea Aven
28th
t
s
a
E
t
e
e
r
t
S
h
t
t
t
e
6
s
e t
1
a
r
s
t
E
a
S
t
E
r
e
1
t 1 t n
o io
i
s s
e
re es
r
t nc
a o
e C
e
r
S t
E
t
p
s
oad 15 oad t
u h S
R t
a
t
e
ey s S
r 6
h
E e
G t
a
r
2
t
t
0
E
e
S
2
t
e
r
e
h
t
t
e
r 7 S
t
1
d
S r
ast 3
d ue E
d 2 n n
ve t
a h A 2 s
o 16t
R 3 a
e
E
r
o t
h
e
S
t e
y
t s t r
a s t
t B s a
t S
a s
s E
a
a E
Ea t h
t E t E
t e
e 8
e e 10 r B &
e t
e s 6 t a y r
r t E wa t t ue gh
S n i e e H v
S S A e h t t
s
h 1 a
r 1 E
t t
d t e
h s u
a n
t
5 r e
E v
S A
8 3 e h
2
t
t
u 0
s
n 1
2 2 a
e h
t E v
t
A e
s u
h
t
n 5
8
e a
v t
1 A
h
t E s
9
t
a
t
s e
a E
E
e t
e t
u r
t
t
n t
t s s
e e a
v s E s
t e
A a s u
t S n
a
h e
a
t a
v t re
E s 7 A
s a E t h
e 8t E
h E
u e
a E u
n t t
n
e
S
e v
t
v E t A
7 h e
A t
7
t t e
h e
t
s h e
6
a e t
e
E r e
e r
e r
r 0
u t t
n t
1
e St
v S S
S
A
t
h t h
5 s
h
t h
t t
5 1
6 1 9 ast
ast enue E
t E v t A
s nue 5th
s a Ave
E h st t
a 5 Ea
e ue
u n ve
E e l Dri t il
n h Av orest H
e t F t t
s 4
v
t
e
A a s
a
e d
r E
E st 3
a
tr E
e
t e t u
u n
t e
S e s
n
s Av
d e W
a
a n
e 2 v
E r
E
A S
th
t
e
d t
7 u
A
n
S
n
t
2 e
1
E
e S
e
u n e
e v v A
h d e n 2
A t r
re
t t t
t s 9
1
s S S
e h t
t
t s s
5 t
e st s
W e
W e
1
W
t W
e e
1 e
u
d u
t a o u
R
n n y n e s r e G
e ve v
v A A
e
A d h t
e n 4 d 2 e r t 3
t
r t st st t s W e t
s s W
t e e e t u s S n
e e e s v
t A
e e
rd t t e 3 W
h W s
e
W s
W
t s
t t r
t W e t
t e
t t e s
9 W e s
e t e W
e st e e
2 S t W
t u
e
e n
e e W
W e
e e v r
e s
r t A
r t t
re h
t d e
t t
t 6 t
W
e t
r r e e
W
e
r e
t S S s
t S t
3 e
t S
t e
e
r W
S e
e r
2 s h
t r
t h S e
t
h t
h t t t
s e t e t
d t
d S e
W
r a
S 5
6 e
o
r
S
t
e 8 s 2
R n
t
e 2
W h e s t
1 A h
r 1 1
S
s 2
t r h u
t
e S
o t
W t
t
t
W
C 2
2 7 f
6
e
l e h
t u
o t 7
e
h
S
n t
G 1
e
t
t
e v e s
e
A
r 8 s
5
h h r e t t e
8 t t
d r
e t 1
a t
t
o S 9
S
s
R W t
e
e y
S W
g rb t s
n h
e e
h
a D
t r t 3
R t e e t n
h io
0
t We
e ss 3
e S e
t c
n
2
7 r t o W
e 1 C s
t a
r
2 e t t
e h
S
t e p l S
s re
W h t
t A
e re
t h
t t
S
t
e 9 e
r e
t t S
1
W S
1
h
y e
s e 1
t t n r
r h
a t
e
0 t
e C t S 1 s
e 4 e W W
r e 1 u t n h e t v
t th A S
e 9
6
t 5
e e
h e 1
r
r t t
S
t
s d
4 r
S e
m a 2 o
S t o h s
t A
e R
0
7 t
e y
3 e r
1 t
W
S
e
k
r t r d a P e
a G
e o t r t
R e
S e
y r
1 t
h
e e
t 2
r S
4
iv
&
G t r
s
e 1
e
r
t n
6
S D
i
k
r
a k
y
P s
t '
a
g A
w
n
h
u
g
i o
Y
H
t
e
e
r
t
S
t
s
e B
d W 7
a 1
o d
R D a
C s o
k
N r R
o
2 y e
W n r
o t
i l G 7
1
s d u
s a Ro a
e y e r V c G n o C Draft Approved Plans Residential Commercial Industrial Sydenham Heights Phase 1 2 Syndenham Heights Phase
d a o 18 R e ad Driv y Ro e Thom Gre d
Vacant Land Supply Vacant City of Owen Sound - Grey County i u G l r i way 6 G High
d 2 0 ine a y l
Ro 1 wn
rey a n To
G y tho
W c
a elan
k -M
w r ate a g
h outh
P S
ig
o H c
t E
B
ee
e tr n A S
i ad 41
L Ro 8
ad Ida Ro
h ey
t Gr
u
o S
8 21
0 RD
te S
A a d
uthg
1 a o
e S
7 o
n 5
i
R d
L e 7 D
n a R
i D e
e
t
ro
r L R S
e
t a
k d e n
c i S t g
S
e e a h
a t 1
2 t
0 g D
C B R u
0 S
t ga th ate o 2 g
s h u outh
a o S S
6 ut
E
2 o S
d S
a 19 o
SRD R
0 e
gat
9 h
e ut
t
1 So
a
d
g
a
h
t o
u R
o
4 S
19 0
3 SRD 7 e d
gat th a
D ou S o
R R
S e
te 15 t D a
a SR g
g 4 gate
h h
h 1 ut
t t o 0 S
u
u
d
1
o
o
a
S d
o S
a
R
o
e
R
t
a
e
9
t
0 d g
8
8 a
h
a
1 t
g
o y
u
d h
a
R t
a o
o u w
m S R h
r o
g a S
15 i F RD
e S H
r thgat eet
0 a Sou Str 13
7 o ie
e rist RD
1 Ch e S
B t
in ga d th
L ou
a S
o k R c 11 a RD ate S B thg t Sou s D 13 e SR hgate
W Sout
0
6 4 14
1 d
2 oa
R
d rey d
a G
o a
R o 7 RD 0
R e S thgat
e ou
t 7 S d a 0
e Roa 2 RD k g S
La 2 te ox a
ilc h thg W t u
d So
u
a
o
o
S
R
B
e
t d
a a g
o D 07
h R
R S t e
gat
u outh
m S o
a
S
h r
ine u
el D
as
B A
e
n
n
i
o
i
L 03
s SRD s
h te t a
e thg u u
c So o
n
S o
C A
n d
o n
i
2
s
s e
c 03 7
n RD 1 RD 5 o S 6 S ate e SRD gate
C hg at uth
out outhg So h S S
t e 4 in Townl 2
lg 1 e -Glen 50 mesia road d Arte Side a 7 o
5 R D e SR
at e
outhg t
S a
g
h
t
u
o
8
S
0
ad d
h Ro a c o Ran D 55
ck SR R ot Ja hgate
Bo out e
S t
a
6
d
g
2
a
h
3 t d
o ad 2 o u
40 a R
d R ey
r o
oa o G
er l
id l S
i
S R
H
e
t
e e
a
n
g
o
h t
t 47 S
u SRD o e 49 thgat
S RD ou gate S S
South
e
3 n
ad 2 i
o 4 d
L
R a
o
g l R
e
n a d e h r l t
G t a a
r 9 W o 4
o road R e
N id lg S
y lene
e G r
e d
G n a
i o L
ad R
Ro h 47 n t D
rch SR o u u
Ch gate d d 6
t h a
tis o out n
p S o
a 0
B S o
R
L d
o
a
4 g
i
ad D 41 o l o S
n R SR
r te R 8 e
o liv ga
i O uth 0
p o e
s S 9
m t
Ca s
d a
d
e
a g
a
6 c
o h
d
o t
n
n a R
u
o R
o
o
o i
e
C
R y
t
s S
e
a
s d
r a g
e 1 109
o 4 G d c
r D oa h
l SR R t n i te rey
ga G u o a uth
o o R S 4
C S
d 1 e e l v lin 2 i
se O d r 1
Ba 2
a
2 D
3 o
d 3
e D n d
a i R
n 39 R l
i
d
a D o r 6
l SR S ad e
a e o
te o a
n t R t
ga R a o
uth g F Grey
a o R
w S h
e t c
R
e
g
t u
o
e o M n
h t
T
a S
e i
t
a g
k
L
u g
l
g
h
a
o
t
h
e
h
L
t
t
u
S
n
r u
u o
e
e o l
o
S
d
S
l S G
i
-
d
e
a
W t
1 t
2 o a
3 n 7
io s
s
R
s g
6
e a
c
n d o h
C Draft Approved Plans Industrial Commercial Residential Rural E n t
d
1 a
d n
e 9
o u i a
s o
d
a
s 9
e 2 e o
c o
a n d o
R r 4
Co 1 r
S
o a R
B
e
d
n
o
R
r
d
6 a o
i
y 1 i
R
a e
w o
h t s
2
S
m g
i t
y y
H
R s
a
e
d
s e
e
h r
L
e a
c r
Vacant Land Supply Vacant of Southgate - Grey County Township
o g G
n u
d
o R
D
E C
2 9
3
8
2
3 4
oad d d d 1 a y
R a o
rey a y R o G a
o Gre
R
w
e R
y
n h B
i e e
r g
L k 07 i d
G a RD
k S H L a te
c hga 4 o t 1
a 2 x Sou ad
3 o o
B R R
1 c y
0 e
t il Gr d 4
s m
1
a W a
a o
E d
ad h
o R r a
ide r
S o
15 u
0
A
R
n
D
3 0
o
e
1 i
n d
y i
a 03
ss
a L D
o e
w 0 e SR h t
c
3 a R
h t g
1 th n
0
u A
g u o y
2 S
d i o
o
1 e n a
H r
C
o S
o
d
a R
G
d si
o
n s
R
2 ce
n 03 d
o RD 61 D 57 a
0 S D R 0 S
C te SR e
1 t
o a a
e te g
g a 1
1 th g th
h
h u t u
n u o R t o o S
d S
S
d li
4 a
e
a n
o
k e
in o
R l w n 50
a Tow d R
o lg oa
L e r
n e T e
Gl id - S
sia 7 e h
e 5 t
a tem D i
s r R
A S a
i e
A t
s a
r g
h g
I t t
4 u
a o
S h
s
r
t
e
e d
h
v u
i 55
r a
W p D
o R
D S
t o
u te
r e a
e S hg k t
E u
e
e a o
r S -
L
t
d
i
S d ia a
o
S R s
n h
i e nc 55 e n a a a R D
n L ack te SR M o m ilt J a
t hg 8
am oo 6 ut
e B o H S 0
t
2
r ad
23 4
d
e d d
A a o
o 0
4
v R a
i a rey
2
R
0 r G o
d
o
1 l
0 l a
R
D 4 d
R i
y d
a
o o a
n r
e e
a d H
i e
t
S o
R
2
e t
w
a
2 e e
2 a
d R
e
g
1 n
t
gh d g
e d i e
h
o 9
a a
h
t 4
t
d
n t
a
H t D
i e R
F g
a S
u
e a o
S L u t
c n a
g h g
i h o
t o t
o ou
k R S
h L
M
S
u
t R c
S
e
e
a o
u h
t
n
e t
i
o
t
4 S
e
4
B a
u d
3 L
t 2 a
a
o S n
1 g
d
o R s d a i
o
l g a
h r
R h
e t
g a
a d t l t S
e n h
n W
r
e t
l o a
W G u
w o
u
o o
R
o
o
d N
S
R y
a 8
T S
o e e
r g
r
n
t d l
e oa
o a e
d R G i
i ke
6
a d g
n
L s a
S s o
ll' R 47 h e
e s h D n l
0 B c t
ur SR 6
e h 7 e
o t
C a u
0
i t g G c s h
ti ut - p o o
s a S
n
B d
e
s
S
t
o
a
4 2
e
a
o
1 C
c
8
n
g 1
R
n 4
d 0
o
d a D h
i o R
t S o
r R 9 a e
t e
s
ive ga d t
l u th
C
o O Draft Approved Plans Residential Commercial Industrial Rural s u d
p o a a
am o S e a o
d R C
a g
S o c
R o
R
h
n y
o n
st t
er R
e o
v u re
Tra t y
o
C
a G
e 09 S r 1
d g e 0 oa
1 R h
G y n
d re t i roa G
th e u
ou L Sid
S o 2
ad ne e
o h li
Vacant Land Supply Land Vacant Grey - County Municipality of West S
e 1
R s 4
s n a c
an B i 3 t l r 1 S i d e r o a d 3
e 1
t 0 d
e
d
u
V n D a
39 d R
a
D
w D S o
SR a
o
e 2 e
o t t a o
hg R a
t 2 T
R
u g
e o
S R th
e
n
d u
d
g
e t
i
l o
e
a
a
k S
t
a L
e
e
o
o a
a g
r n
n h
L
g i
h
t R
e e
l
e t
n l
r
i h
l u
d e n
t
s u e
i a
e
o G
B t
u
o
w -
S d
a
S
l t
o
e
o S i
g
2 t
s 0 T
ion S
h
s a a
6 W
s d 3
e ce t d
in n g
a
l o E u
e C 6
s n
a h
o
B o
t d
d d
a
d
l
u
a
R
S
l
a
a
a
o o
o
o
o
o
n
r
S
R
H
d e
R 6
R
e y -
a
e
a w 9
n
d h
g
g r
i i
l
o m H 4
e
d
r
B
6 e S
a
e
a
d e
r n
h
g
s
d
o
a d r
e e
i
u
l
d e a t
o u
R
t
t
S
a
g a
o
G
e R D
e r
n
o d
S
s
l
L
1 ' e e
i 2
E
r
n R
y k
o 2
i d t
3
K s
i
s
k c
ce
d i
n S
o d S c
d
e
C R
5 o
a
o
m a s
3
o
G r
m
o
i a o
R
l
d
o
r
w
d
L R
W
g ne
a i
e l
e e
C
a s
l a d
u
o B
d
d
c
4
o
i
p
a
o
R
a R
a
S R
M o
6 n D
y o
G
a y r
w o R M
h ne i
g i
i e l
e e
H l s s
W a
l B
n
i d
s
i r
d
d
e H
a
a S
a
c
V
o
n
o
n h
r
t
o
R
e o
t n
i
e l 8
t ase
k
C
d B
1
u
i c
R GR
H S e
e W
2
B G n n
b io e
n i
l
h i
9 s l
s e l t
ce s
W a
e n
B n
9
d Co
8
d
w a
W DR 5
a
o S n
o d d 2
r a a
o o o T
r er o
e i r d
e Sid Si
y
h s e t
d 0
i 3
s
b
d
4
i
e S n
1 5
c S
a
2
n
n
d
R m
D o
r 9
o d
N r i
d 5
3 a a
o
o 2 C s
e er ad d
o n id ro
4
i s
l R e N
e S d a
s h i
a t S -
e
R B 0 o
3 D
d
o
c
t
a
y R
S
n
n
o e
0 i
o
2 y r
2 d
R a
R o
D r e
M C
4 N e
G d r
sion ad n Si
es ro y
nc e o G o d i
C Si e r 30th s 3
s d
G a
R o e
e rey R c
D
n G
i
t
n 2 l
N
e
o 1 n
R
4 e
C
w
r n
1
D t
o o
ad i S T
N
n d o
oa k R s t
o R r
a k s i
ck P r
o 4 n
l c
s a
u l e
M Al e
n 3
s
n
d c b R i v e i
r
R o
a
d a
l
o o
t
6 e R n
sion i rey c n A s s
ce G o
on 9
n e s C
C 10
o e
d B d
8 oa
- r
c e
a
C
1 id
y S
n
o
b n
o
7
R
n
o
6 i C
R
d
a
y
1
a
D
b
ss
m
R
9
n o
r
R n
e
N
r 6
D
o
o
c
R a
i R
d
D
e D
N 6
n
n N
d s
N a
d a
D
m
o N
i
r o A
s
o
e r
n
o
d i
i 2
S S
9
S
e
8
o
s
h o C
t
R
0 i
2 c
n
s
2
d N s
n
n
y
o e
s a i
o
n 5
o
c
i d
s
e a o
8 re
o ro
n s
n
r e
o i C i s
ss c Sid
e s
G s c o e n e
Co n
e
s
d c
o C
i
c
e
n
C
S
n c
o
o
n
C
o
C
C
7
R
R 1
D 8 t
D d N
2 a e
o n r 0
N e 1
d e o
i ad d
S i d o
th r R
0
0 t y s a
1 a Gre
R
1 R
s
S
o
o
e
D D
n
R
R
n
c
t
o
N
N
e
i
y e n
e
l
t
e
s
l
8
e 4 o
2
i e
e
r s
u
r
1 1 v
t
C
d
8
e
e
G p
r Q
e a
2
S n
c n t
p
n o
o n o
i
S
i
i d h r
R a l
t o D
s
s N a
e
n
n d h
a 4
s
s
t
C o
o d r
e K i
1
w id e e
S 8
h R
o
c t S c
5
T
n
n y e
5 nu
o
o e e
n v
2
r A
h
C a
C 7t ue
G n d
v ve
i A l a d
l 2n
o
u 2 R 0 n 1 S d 1 ssio - oa
once y ce R
C e
ck ru
r B
n
i
G
t
n e
B 0 ad 1 e Ro Bruc
Line Bruce Grey-