Following an Open House on June 24th where approximately 200 residents turned out to learn more about the proposed Community Planning Permit By-law and Official Plan Amendment, Andrew Davidge, Urban Planner for Gladki Planning Associates, presented an in-depth powerpoint presentation at Saugeen Shores Town Council meeting on July 13th (2026).
During the ‘Open to Public’ portion of the meeting, a dozen residents spoke to Council, most of whom were from Southampton, airing their concerns over the proposed Community Planning Permit System (CPPS). Among the concerns were a loss of heritage character, loss of protection for designated heritage properties, designation of authority from Council to staff, parking issues, and many others. Speakers felt the process was being “rushed” and that Southampton and Port Elgin are two distinct communities. In addition to the speakers, there were ten written submissions to the town.
Jill Taylor, architect and conservation professional, former Chair of Ontario Conservation Review Board and past Chair of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, said that the CPPS is a “… vague and rushed piece of work that does not identify the unique characteristics of Southampton. The CPPS is a planning tool that is in the early stage of development in the province. What has been prepared for you is a generic off-the-shelf plan that does not suit the unique nature of town. It is not a perfect match for our core commercial areas. There are no design standards that accompany the plan and, therefore, if the CPP plan is adopted, there will be no ability for staff or Council to measure the acceptability, the lack of performance or the decision-making process – decisions will be arbitrary.”
She also suggested that, if a revised CPPS should evolve out of this work, Saugeen Shores should take cues from those municipalities who have explored or implemented the CPPS … there should be benchmarks for staff recommendations, make sure the standards are enforceable in the face of development applications, be very explicit in the description of the places being planned so that the ones you are trying to protect are clearly defined with strong concise language.
“We are at the cusp of immense risk to our built and natural heritage character due to changes in provincial legislation,” added Taylor. “This new policy accompanied by the erosion of our Official Plan (OP) would further endanger the nature of our of our two former historic towns. Proceeding with the town’s main streets first is not the place to make mistakes. The boundaries were admittedly rushed to start the process with the consultant to meet deadline. This rushed decision has resulted in flawed boundaries. Excluding the public and reducing timelines putting pressure on staff has resulted in emboldening developers who are not connected to a community or its welfare.”
Patricia Corrigan-Frank also asked, “What is the rush? I suggest we defer until after the election an that a further study be done of other municipalities … the CPPS is a powerful tool and some have adopted a pilot project first. The CPPS removes public participation and is closing doors for future generations.”
“The town just approved a Cultural Heritage Plan and that should be studied,” added Sheila Latham. “Southampton has lost its furniture making and fishing and is being reduced to a beach community selling bikinis and beach noodles reliant on tourism. These (CPPS) guidelines are unfinished.”
While several other speakers reiterated their dissatisfaction with the proposed CPP By-law and Official Plan amendment, Councillors also expressed their views.
Vice-deputy Mayor Mike Myatt made a motion to defer the proposed CPPS “This is a major decision that should no be rushed. A lot of concerns have been raised that we need to listen to. Perhaps, one day there will be a time for a CPPS and I think there are a lot of best practices out there but we should make an informed decision.”
Councillor Rachel Stack said, “We are also living with the products of our service. We were elected and I think we should be accountable for the decisions we make. I’m not sure there is a ton of value in this process. Ultimately, we live in a political regime that supports development over other measures and I’m not sure it’s an appropriate time to put a CPPS process in place. Given the concerns on development and trust, and with all the other issues in front of us … I will not vote for this.”
Councillor Cheryl Grace also supports the motion to defer. The information to circumvent or escape from provincial removal of municipal rights … I would like to see public input on how character is designed, such as Port Elgin and Southampton’s connections to Lake Huron … there are a lot of specifics in other municipalities that protect their downtown, such as Niagara-on-the-Lake. I will vote to defer.”
Councillor John Divinski raised the point that staff, under a CPPS would be making planning decisions that should be made by Council. “Why are we in such a rush? I’m not so sure I would even vote for it. Nothing from the June 24th meeting is in this By-law. I will vote against the CPPS.”
Councillor Bud Halpin said Council was elected to do a job. Development is going to happen and people don’t like change. To the people who moved here, no-one gave you permission … you moved here and people are going to continue to move here. We have a housing crisis. I thought the CPP might give us more control over development and we could claw back some of what the provincial government has taken away from us. We’ve invested a lot of time in this and maybe we should just apply it to Port Elgin, take more time and develop it. I don’t think we should defer it but deal with it as a pilot in Port Elgin.”
Deputy Mayor Diane Huber agreed with the deferral. “I don’t think we’re ready for it yet. I think we need to come up with something that is closer to a definition of character. Looking back, the Official Plan had more language about character and we took it out. There are things in the zoning by-law that no longer make any sense and are not relevant anymore.”
She went on to say that she appreciates all the comments and passion, good bad and indifferent. “There are young dads who have kids that play hockey, play at playgrounds and walk on roads, and it’s for them that we are creating a community.
Our community continues to attract seasonal people who become permanent residents, it attracts new permanent residents, new seasonal, new families for employment and kept some of us for our entire lives. We’ve seen change and kind of embraced it and still kept this place with the spirit and specialness that we all want to protect. We’ve invested money in property and Council does its best to protect those investments for all of us as taxpayers. So, let’s have the conversation. I see opportunity in the CPPS but do not like the delegation of authority at all. I would like to take the time to get it right so that we do have the opportunity to take back, and take advantage of what we can to in some way help things follow the spirit of Saugeen Shores. We need to engage more with people to know what that spirit is.”
Councillor Dave Myette pointed out that “… a community that has a CPPS in place is more attractive to developers. There is a tremendous advantage to that. Towns we live in now didn’t look like that 100 years ago or 50 years agao. Heritage is all in the perception. I am in favour of the CPPS.”
Mayor Luke Charbonneau said “We shoud always look at ways to improve things, make things more efficient and cost effective. The bottom line, for me, has always been about housing and is part of the pantheon to try to advance housing … and trying to do things that are innovative. The CPP is a hard thing to do and why most municipalities haven’t done it. It’s challenging and a tough community conversation. That’s why we put it out there to see is it something that our community could accept. Would it make things better with respect to housing? How does this answer the housing question? The answer I get is it allows us more intensification and to slip around restrictions in the Planning Act. To me, that’s thin gruel. The province will see and, if the province finds the CPPS is taking away from its intent, it will instantly wipe those things out like they’ve done a hundred times in a hundred different ways. If we do this successfully and other communities begin to adopt it and it runs contrary to the province’s desires, the whole premise for the housing argument will go away because the province will wipe it out. For me, it comes down to housing affordability and if streamlining the process can help get more housing affordable, then to me, is worth doing. I don’t see this (CPPS) as a slam-dunk.”
“It would not be worth the pain and attempting to convince the public if there wasn’t that payoff,” added Mayor Charbonneau. “So, I am not convinced. I had hoped that by the time we got to this point there would be a stronger argument for housing. I’m in favour of the deferral, but I am not in favour of punting this to the next council. I would like to say to staff give me a CPPS that gets us some affordable housing, that speaks more to heritage, to the environment as those are some of what we are going to have to address. So, go away and make it stronger. For me, I have to have a stronger argument for housing. We are trying to do innovative things to advance housing – regulatory changes, affordable housing projects, being a leader will make it a better place for everybody.”
The motion to defer was carried with Councillors Myette, Stack and Halpin opposed.
