FORECAST & GROWTH ALLOCATION REPORT FINAL...Forecast Year-Round Population by Area Municipality,...

2019 GROWTH STRATEGY

FORECAST & GROWTH ALLOCATION REPORT

FINAL

HEMSON C o n s u l t i n g L t d.

February 8, 2019

i

HEMSON

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The District of Muskoka has retained Hemson Consulting Ltd. to update the District’s Growth Strategy (GS) that was prepared in 2013. The update includes population, housing and employment forecasts for the District from 2016 to a 2046 horizon, along with local allocations of forecast growth to its six Area Municipalities. These forecasts have been prepared to guide the development of policies related to planning and growth management, urban land needs and municipal finance at the District and Area Municipal levels. More specifically, this update will provide background to the Muskoka Official Plan and updated Development Charges Background Study.

This 2019 Growth Strategy Study is being undertaken in two parts. This Forecast and Growth Allocation report summarizes the current context for year-round population, seasonal population, dwelling unit and employment growth in the District and Area Municipalities, details the forecast assumptions and outlook at a District-wide level, and discusses the local allocation of growth based on land supply and market trends. A follow-up report will follow later in 2019, and will detail additional matters of importance to the Muskoka Official Plan and overall planning for a variety of District programs, including preferred locations and targets for growth, an analysis of intensification opportunities, and commentary on the fiscal sustainability of growth.

Key points from this Forecast and Growth Allocation Report include:

The District of Muskoka has grown modestly since the previous Growth Strategy, with lower than historical average growth in year-round population and employment, and a small decline in the estimated seasonal population. Housing growth has been outpacing growth in residents, most notably amongst seasonal residents, likely an outcome of the aging demographic trend and shifting habitational patterns. Year-round growth in the District has primarily occurred in the Towns, while seasonal growth has been more broadly distributed across the Area Municipalities.

Three forecast scenarios were prepared based on varying assumptions regarding future levels of in-migration, economic activity and seasonal residential activity. A low, reference and high scenario provide a range on the District’s

ii

HEMSON

future growth outlook. The reference scenario was presented to the Province and Area Municipal planning staff and represents the most likely outcome for Muskoka.

The Growth Strategy was prepared within the context of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and changes to the Muskoka Official Plan under Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 47. 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 Muskoka. OPA 47 was adopted in August of 2018 and incorporates the recommendations of the 2013 GS.

A review and update of the District-wide land supply inventory was undertaken indicating sufficient supply to accommodate forecast growth, both District-wide and within each of Muskoka’s local Area Municipalities, in consideration of their serviced Urban Centres. This report does not recommend changes to the settlement area boundaries at this time.

The District-wide reference growth forecast is allocated to the Area Municipalities in Muskoka, taking into consideration a range of planning policy, historic growth and recent development trends and land supply and servicing capacities.

Sub-municipal growth allocations were prepared based on recent development indicators and policy direction. The forecast allocations determined that each of Muskoka’s municipalities should have more than enough vacant land available to accommodate the anticipated amount of growth within their respective Urban Centres in order to accommodate projected demand through to the 2046 forecast horizon, respective of the growth targets for year-round population recommended in the 2013 GS. The follow-up to this Forecast & Growth Allocation report will further review these growth targets, and may recommend changes.

Forecast results are summarized on the following pages, including net change, share of total District growth, and local Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for each Area Municipality for each forecast category:

iii

HEMSON

Forecast Year-Round Population by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Year-round Population 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net

Change Share of District

CAGR

Bracebridge 16,000 17,400 18,700 19,600 3,600 24.0% 0.68%

Gravenhurst 12,300 13,600 14,800 15,700 3,400 22.7% 0.82%

Huntsville 19,800 22,200 24,600 26,200 6,400 42.7% 0.94%

Georgian Bay 2,700 3,100 3,400 3,600 900 6.0% 0.96%

Lake of Bays 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,500 300 2.0% 0.30%

Muskoka Lakes 6,600 6,700 6,800 7,000 400 2.7% 0.20%

District Total 60,600 66,200 71,700 75,600 15,000 100.0% 0.74%

Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures have been rounded and may not add to total. Note: These figures exclude net Census undercoverage, estimated at 4.99%.

Forecast Seasonal Population by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Seasonal Population 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 7,300 7,800 8,000 8,100 800 6.8% 0.35%

Gravenhurst 11,500 12,100 12,600 12,900 1,400 12.0% 0.38%

Huntsville 7,100 8,300 9,400 10,200 3,100 26.5% 1.21%

Georgian Bay 16,700 17,700 18,500 19,200 2,500 21.4% 0.47%

Lake of Bays 11,900 12,500 13,000 13,400 1,500 12.8% 0.40%

Muskoka Lakes 27,300 28,400 29,200 29,800 2,500 21.4% 0.29%

District Total 81,900 86,900 90,500 93,600 11,700 100.0% 0.45%

Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures have been rounded and may not add to total.

iv

HEMSON

Municipal Shares of District-wide Year-round Household Forecast Growth, 2016-2046

Municipality Share of District-wide Unit Growth by 2046

Year-Round Occupied Seasonally Occupied

Bracebridge 24.5% 6.4% Gravenhurst 21.9% 12.2% Huntsville 40.6% 25.9% Georgian Bay 6.2% 20.7% Lake of Bays 3.0% 12.8% Muskoka Lakes 3.9% 21.3%

District Total 100.0% 100.0%


Year-round Housing Unit Forecast by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Year-round Occupied Housing Units 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 6,740 7,480 8,160 8,630 1,890 24.5% 0.83%

Gravenhurst 5,010 5,660 6,270 6,700 1,690 21.9% 0.97%

Huntsville 8,110 9,330 10,460 11,240 3,130 40.6% 1.09%

Georgian Bay 1,200 1,390 1,560 1,680 480 6.2% 1.13%

Lake of Bays 1,470 1,560 1,640 1,690 220 2.9% 0.47%

Muskoka Lakes 2,910 3,030 3,140 3,210 300 3.9% 0.33%

District Total 25,440 28,450 31,230 33,140 7,700 100.0% 0.89%


Forecast Year-Round Housing Unit Growth by Unit Type, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Year-round Housing Growth by Type Share by Type

Single/Semi Rows Apts Total Single/ Semi

Rows Apts

Bracebridge 1,410 190 290 1,890 75% 10% 15%

Gravenhurst 1,100 190 400 1,690 65% 11% 24%

Huntsville 2,100 380 650 3,130 67% 12% 21%

Georgian Bay 380 90 10 480 79% 18% 3%

Lake of Bays 210 0 10 220 94% 0% 6%

Muskoka Lakes 270 20 10 300 90% 6% 5%

District Total 5,470 870 1,370 7,710 71% 11% 18%


v

HEMSON

Seasonal Housing Unit Forecast by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Seasonally Occupied Housing Units 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 2,130 2,250 2,300 2,340 210 6.4% 0.31%

Gravenhurst 3,370 3,550 3,670 3,770 400 12.2% 0.37%

Huntsville 2,170 2,500 2,810 3,020 850 25.9% 1.11%

Georgian Bay 4,550 4,830 5,040 5,230 680 20.7% 0.47%

Lake of Bays 3,450 3,630 3,750 3,870 420 12.8% 0.38%

Muskoka Lakes 7,220 7,520 7,730 7,920 700 21.3% 0.31%

District Total 22,880 24,270 25,290 26,160 3,280 100.0% 0.45%


Forecast Total Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Total Employment 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 8,770 9,150 9,550 10,000 1,230 23.1% 0.44%

Gravenhurst 4,580 4,890 5,210 5,590 1,010 18.9% 0.67%

Huntsville 10,230 10,890 11,530 12,290 2,060 38.6% 0.61%

Georgian Bay 980 1,080 1,170 1,280 300 5.6% 0.89%

Lake of Bays 970 1,040 1,100 1,170 200 3.8% 0.63%

Muskoka Lakes 3,210 3,370 3,550 3,750 540 10.1% 0.52%

District Total 28,750 30,420 32,100 34,080 5,330 100.0% 0.57%


HEMSON

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ I

I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

A. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1 B. STUDY PURPOSE ...................................................................................... 4 C. REPORT CONTENTS ................................................................................. 5

II DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE .................................................... 6

A. DATA SOURCES AND THEIR ACCURACY ................................................ 6 B. YEAR-ROUND POPULATION GROWTH HAS SLOWED RECENTLY ........ 7 C. MUSKOKA’S POPULATION IS AGING ..................................................... 9 D. THE POST-RECESSION HOUSEHOLD GROWTH RATE RECOVERING

SLOWLY .................................................................................................. 10 E. SEASONAL UNIT GROWTH HAS OUTPACED SEASONAL POPULATION

GROWTH ................................................................................................ 14 F. HISTORIC TRENDS IN HOUSING CONVERSION HAVE SHIFTED ......... 18 G. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH HAS BEEN MODEST ...................................... 20 H. COMPARISON TO 2013 GS FORECASTS ................................................ 28

III DISTRICT-WIDE FORECASTS INDICATE MODERATE GROWTH TO 2046 ..... 30

A. FORECAST METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS ............................................ 30 B. DISTRICT-WIDE REFERENCE FORECAST RESULTS ................................. 38

IV LOCAL ALLOCATION OF FORECAST GROWTH BASED ON POLICY, MARKET DEMAND AND SUPPLY ................................................................................... 44

A. 2014 PPS SETS THE FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH ALLOCATIONS AND PLANNING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL .......................................................... 44

B. LOCAL GROWTH ALLOCATIONS RESPECT LOCAL MARKET, CAPACITY AND POLICY DIRECTIONS ..................................................................... 45

C. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE RISE .......................................... 49 D. SIGNIFICANT SUPPLY OF UNITS IN DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS........ 52 E. UPDATED LAND SUPPLY INVENTORY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...... 53 F. CONSULTATION WITH AREA MUNICIPAL AND DISTRICT STAFF ........ 61

V LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF FORECAST GROWTH .......................................... 63

A. AREA MUNICIPAL GROWTH ALLOCATIONS ........................................ 63 B. YEAR-ROUND OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLD FORECAST ............................ 64 C. YEAR-ROUND POPULATION FORECAST ............................................... 66 D. SEASONAL UNIT AND POPULATION FORECAST .................................. 67 E. EMPLOYMENT FORECAST ...................................................................... 70

HEMSON

F. PRELIMINARY FORECAST FOR GROWTH IN URBAN CENTRES ............ 75

VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 80

APPENDIX A AGE STRUCTURE BY FORECAST PERIOD ........................................... 83

APPENDIX B DETAILED SUB-MUNICIPAL FORECAST ALLOCATIONS ................... 85

List of Tables

Table 1: Historical Year-round Population by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2006-2016 .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Table 2: Historical Year-round Occupied Housing Units, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016 ...... 11

Table 3: Average Year-round Persons Per Unit, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016 ..................... 11

Table 4: Historical Year-round Occupied Households by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2006-2016 ............................................................................................................... 12

Table 5: Year-round Housing Mix by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2001 & 2016 ... 14

Table 6: Historical Estimated Seasonal Population, District of Muskoka, 1973-2017 ............... 16

Table 7: Historical Seasonal Units, District of Muskoka, 1973-2017 ........................................ 16

Table 8: Seasonal Occupancy Patterns by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2004-2017 17

Table 9: Seasonal Units by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2004-2017 ...................... 17

Table 10: Estimated Annual Conversions of Seasonal to Year-Round Dwellings, District of Muskoka .................................................................................................................................. 19

Table 11: Historical Total Employment, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016 ................................. 21

Table 12: Historical Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2006-2016 ........ 24

Table 13: Historical Resident Employed Labour Force, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016 .......... 25

Table 14: Historical Employment Summary, District of Muskoka, 2001-16 .............................. 27

Table 15: Comparison of 2013 GS Forecast and Census Results for 2016 ................................ 28

Table 16: Location of Regular Place of Residence of Seasonal Residents, District of Muskoka . 36

Table 17: Forecast Year-Round Population by Forecast Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ........................................................................................................................................ 39

Table 18: Forecast Total Year-Round Dwelling Units by Forecast Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ............................................................................................................................... 41

Table 19: Forecast Total Seasonal Population by Forecast Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ........................................................................................................................................ 42

HEMSON

Table 20: Forecast Total Seasonal Dwelling Units by Forecast Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ............................................................................................................................... 42

Table 21: Forecast Total Employment by Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046................ 43

Table 22: Year-round Dwelling Growth Targets by Urban Centre as a Percentage of Total Dwelling Unit Growth by Area Municipality ............................................................................ 47

Table 23: Housing Mix Targets for New Year-round Residential Development in Designated Growth Areas by Area Municipality ......................................................................................... 48

Table 24: Estimated Share of District Residential Building Permits by Use, District of Muskoka, 2008-2018 ............................................................................................................................... 52

Table 25: Residential Units in Plans of Subdivision and Condominium Descriptions by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka ............................................................................................ 52

Table 26: Vacant Residential Land Supply................................................................................ 55

Table 27: Vacant Commercial and Institutional Land Supply ................................................... 56

Table 28: Vacant Industrial Land Supply .................................................................................. 56

Table 29: Vacant Residential Land Supply Capacity in Urban Centres, by Area Municipalities 58

Table 30: Vacant Residential Land Supply Capacity in Communities, by Area Municipality .... 58

Table 31: Vacant Industrial Land Supply Capacity by Area Municipality .................................. 59

Table 32: Vacant Commercial Land Supply Capacity by Area Municipality ............................. 60

Table 33: Municipal Shares of District-wide Year-round Household Forecast Growth, 2016-2046 ........................................................................................................................................ 63

Table 34: Year-round Housing Unit Forecast by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ........................................................................................................................................ 64

Table 35: Forecast Household Growth by Unit Type, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ............ 65

Table 36: Forecast Year-Round Population by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ........................................................................................................................................ 66

Table 37: Municipal Shares of District-wide Seasonal Household Forecast Growth, 2016-2046 ................................................................................................................................................. 68

Table 38: Seasonal Housing Unit Forecast by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ........................................................................................................................................ 69

Table 39: Forecast Seasonal Population by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ................................................................................................................................................. 70

Table 40: Forecast Total Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 . 71

Table 41: Example Employment Sectors by Land Use Category ............................................... 72

Table 42: Share of Total Employment Growth by Land Use Category by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ............................................................................................... 73

Table 43: Forecast Commercial / Population-related Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ........................................................................................................... 73

HEMSON

Table 44: Forecast Employment-land Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ............................................................................................................................... 73

Table 45: Forecast Other / Rural-based Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ............................................................................................................................... 73

Table 46: Forecast Sub-Municipal Growth Allocation by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ............................................................................................................................... 76

Table 47: Forecast Sub-Municipal Unit Demand and Supply Comparison by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046 ............................................................................................... 78

List of Figures

Figure 1: District of Muskoka, Regional Context Map ................................................................. 2

Figure 2: District of Muskoka Area Municipality Map with Urban Centres ................................. 3

Figure 3: District of Muskoka Year-Round Population Growth, 1981-2016 ................................ 7

Figure 4: Historic Population Age Structure, District of Muskoka, 2001 and 2016 ................... 10

Figure 5: Housing Mix by Built Form, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016 .................................... 13

Figure 6: Ontario Employed Labour Force, Seasonally Adjusted, January 2008 to January 2018 ................................................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 7: Change in Place of Work Employment by Sector, District of Muskoka, 2001-16 ....... 22

Figure 8: Change in Share of District Employment by Sector, 2001-16 ..................................... 23

Figure 9: Where Muskoka Residents Commute to for Work, 2016 ........................................... 26

Figure 10: Where Employees Working in Muskoka Commute From, 2016 ............................... 26

Figure 11: Forecast Method Diagram ....................................................................................... 32

Figure 12: Historical Migrant Age Structure, District of Muskoka, 2011-2016 .......................... 33

Figure 13: Components of Migration, Net Migration by 5-year Period, District of Muskoka, 1986-2016 ............................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 14: Forecast Age Structure, District of Muskoka, 2016 & 2046 ...................................... 40

Figure 15: Building Permits by Dwelling Type, District of Muskoka, 2008-2017 ...................... 49

Figure 16: Estimated Building Permits for Year-Round Use, by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2008-2017 ............................................................................................................... 50

Figure 17: Estimated Building Permits for Seasonal Use, by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2008-2017 ............................................................................................................... 51

1

HEMSON

I INTRODUCTION

The District of Muskoka (the District) has retained Hemson Consulting Ltd. to update the District’s Growth Strategy (GS) that was prepared in 2013. The update includes population, housing and employment forecasts for the District from 2016 to a 2046 horizon, along with local allocations of forecast growth to its six Area Municipalities. These forecasts have been prepared to guide the development of policies related to planning and growth management, urban land needs and municipal finance at the District and Area Municipal levels. More specifically, this update will provide background to the new Development Charges Background Study that is underway.

A. BACKGROUND

The District of Muskoka is an upper-tier municipality located in Central Ontario. Muskoka is bordered by the Northern Ontario municipalities of Parry Sound and Nipissing to the north, the Eastern Ontario municipalities of Haliburton and Kawartha Lakes to the south and east, and the Central Ontario municipality of Simcoe County to the southwest. Covering an area of just over 4,700 km2 between the shoreline of Georgian Bay to the west and Algonquin Provincial Park to the east, the District is home to 9 Urban Centres, 19 Communities, 2 indigenous communities, and over 650 lakes, making it a popular cottage and resort vacation destination.

2

HEMSON

Figure 1: District of Muskoka, Regional Context Map

Source: Hemson Consulting, Esri

The District comprises six lower-tier Area Municipalities:

Town of Bracebridge Town of Gravenhurst Town of Huntsville

Township of Georgian Bay Township of Lake of Bays Township of Muskoka Lakes

Each of these Area Municipalities includes serviced Urban Centres, unserviced Communities, Rural and Waterfront Areas with varied local demographic, economic and geographic characteristics and a range of permanent and seasonal population size, employment activity, servicing capacity, and natural and recreational amenities.

3

HEMSON

Figure 2: District of Muskoka Area Municipality Map with Urban Centres

Source: Hemson Consulting, Esri. Note: Geographies shown in red indicate designated Urban

Centres

Through the Muskoka Official Plan, the District sets out broad policy objectives for managing growth and development across Muskoka’s diverse Area Municipalities over the long-term. This includes allocating the projected population, housing and employment growth that is used as a basis for planning District services, in local Area Municipal official plans and for a range of other planning, asset management, engineering, emergency and community service delivery initiatives.

4

HEMSON

B. STUDY PURPOSE

As per the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), upper-tier municipalities are responsible for developing, coordinating and allocating population, dwelling and employment forecasts, identifying areas where growth will be directed and determining targets for intensification and redevelopment. This update to the District’s GS meets this requirement, providing background information on the review of the Muskoka Official Plan and a variety of other land use planning functions.

Key considerations for the Growth Strategy update include:

The forecasts that were the basis of the 2013 GS were in large part based on population, housing and employment information from Statistics Canada’s 2011 Census and National Household Survey, along with data from the District’s 2012 Second Home Study. This update to the GS relies upon more recent and robust demographic and economic data from the 2016 long-form Census and the District’s 2017 Second Home Study.

The Province released an updated PPS that 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 current update provides an important opportunity to re-evaluate the District’s growth outlook based on the most current available data. The District of Muskoka has grown modestly since the 2013 GS, with limited growth in year-round population and employment, and a small decline in the estimated seasonal population. Housing growth has been outpacing growth in residents, most notably amongst seasonal residents, a likely outcome of the aging demographic trend and shifting habitational patterns.

The update also provides an important opportunity to evaluate how recent development occurring or approved since the 2013 GS has affected the supply of vacant land in the District’s designated settlement areas.

The GS update provides a basis for planning policy and a variety of other corporate programs that reflects a realistic growth outlook that accounts for demographic change and an evolving economic base. It will support the District’s planning efforts to achieve sustainable growth management over the long-term.

5

HEMSON

C. REPORT CONTENTS

This report examines recent growth and change in the District, provides the results of the updated District-wide growth forecasts and land supply review. 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 the District of Muskoka over recent Census periods and discusses demographic and economic trends affecting the pattern and pace of growth;

Section III describes the forecast method and underlying assumptions and presents the results of the District-wide forecasts of population and housing for both year-round and seasonal residents, and employment;

Section IV discusses the drivers of future population, household and employment growth at the Area Municipal level, including the policy context for allocating growth, recent development activity, land supply inventory and input received from District and Area Municipal staff;

Section V presents the results of the local Area Municipal growth allocation, distinguishing between serviced and unserviced communities; and

Section VI provides summary conclusions from the study.

6

HEMSON

II DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

The District of Muskoka has grown modestly over the past decade, with moderate growth in year-round population and employment, and a slight decrease in the District’s estimated seasonal population following the recent recession dominated period. Housing growth has been outpacing growth in year-round and seasonal residents over the last decade, likely a reflection of the aging demographic trend with its resulting decline in average household size. Year-round growth in the District has primarily occurred in the Towns of Huntsville, Bracebridge and Gravenhurst, while seasonal growth has been more broadly distributed across each of the six Area Municipalities. This section discusses recent population, housing and employment growth in the District in the context of broader demographic and economic trends and examines where and how this growth has been distributed.

A. DATA SOURCES AND THEIR ACCURACY

There are a number of significant challenges associated with data collection in areas like the District of Muskoka, where disbursed rural geographies and large shares of seasonally occupied units make collection of accurate data difficult. The primary source of data for preparing population and employment projections is the national Census, which is undertaken by Statistics Canada every five years. As noted in the 2013 GS Phase II report and more recently in District staff reports to Council and Committee1, there have been variances in numbers reported in recent Census releases by Statistics Canada in terms of year-round population and total occupied dwelling counts when compared to other data sources, such as unit counts provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). The Census also does not provide information on seasonal population, which therefore must be inferred from other sources, including the District of Muskoka’s Second Home Study.

1 Report to Planning and Economic Development Committee PED-4-2017-1, 2016 Census – Permanent Population and Total Private Dwellings, dated April 20, 2017

7

HEMSON

In preparing this 2019 GS, every effort has been made to resolve differences between data sources so as to present a comprehensive picture of the growth outlook for the District. No data set is perfect and every single source of data has inherent assumptions, limitations and may contain errors. Where possible, data sets and assumptions have been cross-checked and supplemented by a range of sources, including the Statistics Canada Annual Demographic Survey, Ontario Ministry of Finance Growth Projections, MPAC assessment and building permit data, and building and demolition permits from the Area Municipalities.

B. YEAR-ROUND POPULATION GROWTH HAS SLOWED RECENTLY

Year-round population growth in Muskoka has slowed over recent Census periods. As shown in Figure 3 below, the District added 4,045 year-round residents between 2006 and 2016, equating to 7.2%. Most of this growth occurred between 2006 and 2011. Since then Muskoka has experienced slightly slower growth, adding 1,379 residents over the most recent Census period from 2011 to 2016. The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over this period equaled 0.46%, which is notably lower than the District’s CAGR in the preceding four Census periods. Figure 3: District of Muskoka Year-Round Population Growth, 1981-2016

Source: Hemson Consulting, using data from Statistics Canada Note: * Revised Census figures for 2006 and 2011 as provided to District of Muskoka in 2012.

38,224 40,145

47,744 50,463

53,106

56,554 59,220

60,599

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Census Population Compound Annual Growth Rate

CAGR%

8

HEMSON

Growth in the District’s year-round population has occurred at an uneven pace amongst Muskoka’s Area Municipalities. Over the most recent 2011 to 2016 Census period, most year-round growth was concentrated in the larger towns, while some townships experienced declines. Table 1 below indicates the change in local year-round Census population (excluding Census net undercoverage2) from 2006 to 2016. Table 1: Historical Year-round Population by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka,

2006-2016

Municipality 2006 2011 2016 2006-11 2011-16 Share of

District-wide 06-16 Growth

Net Change

CAGR Net

Change CAGR

Bracebridge 14,879 15,414 16,010 535 0.71% 596 0.76% 28% Gravenhurst 11,018 12,055 12,311 1,037 1.82% 256 0.42% 32% Huntsville 18,280 19,056 19,816 776 0.83% 760 0.79% 38% Georgian Bay 2,340 2,482 2,707 142 1.19% 225 1.75% 9% Lake of Bays 3,570 3,506 3,167 (64) (0.36%) (339) (2.01%) (10%) Muskoka Lakes 6,467 6,707 6,588 240 0.73% (119) (0.36%) 3% District Total 56,554 59,220 60,599 2,666 0.93% 1,379 0.46% 100%

Source: Statistics Canada Census data Note: Figures exclude Census net undercoverage, which is estimated at 4.99%. Key observations include:

Year-round population growth rates have varied between Area Municipalities over the two most recent Census periods, with some municipalities seeing steady to strong growth, while others have seen negative growth.

The Towns of Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Huntsville experienced the most overall growth over the ten years from 2006 to 2016, with growth slowing in

2 Statistics Canada estimates the net number of persons who are omitted (i.e. overcoverage less undercoverage) during the enumeration of the Census. This rate is provided as part of the Statistics Canada Annual Demographic Statistics, and is typically included in sources such as the Ontario Ministry of Finance population forecasts. It is to be noted that the District of Muskoka’s corporate policy is to use Census population counts when conducting growth related reporting and planning. Unless otherwise stated, population and growth figures exclude net undercoverage. As such, care should be taken when comparing figures in this report with forecasts from other sources which include Census net undercoverage.

9

HEMSON

Gravenhurst for the 2011 to 2016 period, but otherwise remaining consistent in the other two Towns.

Year-round population growth in the Townships of Georgian Bay, Lake of Bays and Muskoka Lakes was much more varied over the 2006 to 2016 period. Georgian Bay experienced strong growth relative to its smaller base population, while Muskoka Lakes and Lake of Bays saw minimal and even negative growth, particularly in the more recent 2011 to 2016 period.

Variances in the Townships year-round population growth can largely be attributed to continued declines in occupancy patterns, with a continued trend towards fewer people per dwelling unit, and 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 year-round use over time (i.e. the conversion cycle). Details on these trends are discussed in further detail later in this section.

Given the relatively small base year-round populations in many of the Area Municipalities, the completion of any one large residential development could potentially skew local growth rates for any given Census period.

C. MUSKOKA’S POPULATION IS AGING

During the three most recent Census period, the District’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 District of Muskoka. The shift in the District’s age structure which occurred between 2001 and 2016 is shown in Figure 4 on the following page.

10

HEMSON

Figure 4: Historic Population Age Structure, District of Muskoka, 2001 and 2016

Source: Hemson Consulting, based on Statistics Canada Census data The most striking aspect of the graph is the pronounced reduction in the number of people in their early 20s, late 30s and 40s relative to those 50 and over. 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 Muskoka residents.

D. THE POST-RECESSION HOUSEHOLD GROWTH RATE RECOVERING SLOWLY

As shown in Table 2 on the following page, the District of Muskoka experienced significant growth in the number of regularly occupied dwelling units in the 2001 to 2006 Census period. However, the pace slowed significantly in the following period, coinciding with the global recession that followed the 2008 Financial Crisis. Since that time, the number of new year-round occupied residential units has gradually increased as the market continues to recover.

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0%

0 - 4 5 - 9

10 - 1415 - 1920 - 2425 - 2930 - 3435 - 3940 - 4445 - 4950 - 5455 - 5960 - 6465 - 6970 - 7475 - 7980 - 8485 - 89

90+

2006 Historic

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0%

0 - 4 5 - 9

10 - 1415 - 1920 - 2425 - 2930 - 3435 - 3940 - 4445 - 4950 - 5455 - 5960 - 6465 - 6970 - 7475 - 7980 - 8485 - 89

90+

2016 Current

11

HEMSON

Table 2: Historical Year-round Occupied Housing Units, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016

Year Households Net Change CAGR

2001 20,690 - -

2006 23,140 2,450 2.26%

2011 24,150 1,010 0.86%

2016 25,430 1,280 1.04%

2001-16 - 4,740 1.38%

Source: Hemson Consulting, based on Statistics Canada Census data. Figures have been rounded and may not add to total.

1. Housing Occupancy

Compared against the growth in year-round population over the past few census periods, growth in the number of year-round occupied dwelling units has continued at a higher pace. This indicates a continued trend towards reduced occupancy patterns and a lower number of persons living together on average. This decline in the District-wide average year-round Persons Per Unit (PPU) is shown in Table 3 below, and can primarily be attributed to the aging population and changing demographic pattern observed in Muskoka and many other parts of Ontario.

Table 3: Average Year-round Persons Per Unit, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016

Year Average Persons Per Unit 3

2001 2.47

2006 2.35

2011 2.36

2016 2.29

Source: Hemson Consulting, based on Statistics Canada Census data.

Communities with an older population tend to have smaller households because there are fewer children and more households with a single person who is likely to be

3 The average Persons Per Unit ratio is calculated as a factor of household population against the total number of occupied households. The household population total tends to be slightly lower than the Census total, as it includes residents not regularly housed in recognized dwelling units.

12

HEMSON

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. As a result, household growth out-paces growth in population. Going forward, it is expected that growth in new units will accommodate proportionally less population overall. The decline in average year-round household size means that fewer people will be housed in the District’s existing housing base and that more units will be required to accommodate less future population.

Year-round population growth and unit growth have tracked fairly closely across the District the past two Census periods. As shown in Table 4, the bulk of the District’s year-round occupied units were developed in the larger towns, while growth in the townships has been more modest between 2006 and 2016.

Table 4: Historical Year-round Occupied Households by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2006-2016

Municipality 2006 2011 2016 2006-11 2011-16 Share of

District-wide 06-16 Growth

Net Change

CAGR Net

Change CAGR

Bracebridge 6,230 6,290 6,740 60 0.19% 450 1.39% 22% Gravenhurst 4,420 4,850 5,010 430 1.87% 160 0.65% 26% Huntsville 7,200 7,600 8,110 400 1.09% 510 1.31% 40% Georgian Bay 1,070 1,100 1,200 30 0.55% 100 1.76% 6% Lake of Bays 1,540 1,540 1,470 0 0.00% (70) (0.93%) (3%) Muskoka Lakes 2,680 2,780 2,910 100 0.74% 130 0.92% 10% District Total 23,140 24,150 25,430 1,010 0.86% 1,280 1.04% 100%

Source: Hemson Consulting, based on Statistics Canada Census data Note: Figures have been rounded and may not add to total.

Key observations include:

All Area Municipalities with the exception of the Township of Lake of Bays grew in terms of year-round occupied households over both Census periods between 2006 and 2016.

The decline noted in Lake of Bays is largely the result of year-round dwelling units being converted to seasonal use on net over the 2011 to 2016 census period.

The highest rates of year-round household growth in the most recent Census period were in the municipalities of Bracebridge, Huntsville and Georgian Bay.

13

HEMSON

Taken together, the larger Towns of Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Huntsville accounted for roughly 88% of the District’s total growth in year-round households over the 2006 to 2016 period.

The Township of Muskoka Lakes continued to add year-round occupied households between 2011 and 2016 despite declining in population, indicative of an aging population.

2. Housing Mix

The existing year-round housing stock as well as new housing growth by type in the District has been characterized by predominance in single detached dwellings, as shown in Figure 5 below. The year-round housing unit mix has remained relatively constant at roughly 83% single family dwellings, 2% semi-detached units, 3% row houses and 13% apartments in 2016.

Figure 5: Housing Mix by Built Form, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016

Source: Statistics Canada Census data Again, there is variation at the Area Municipal level in response to the unique characteristics of communities within Muskoka. The year-round housing mix by Area Municipality is shown in Table 5 on the following page.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2001 2006 2011 2016

Single Semi-detached Rowhouse Apartment

14

HEMSON

Table 5: Year-round Housing Mix by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2001 & 2016

Municipality 2001 2016

Single Semis Rows Apts Single Semis Rows Apts

Bracebridge 79% 3% 4% 15% 75% 3% 5% 16%

Gravenhurst 82% 1% 4% 14% 81% 1% 3% 15%

Huntsville 81% 2% 1% 16% 81% 1% 1% 17%

Georgian Bay 94% 1% 0% 6% 93% 1% 3% 3%

Lake of Bays 95% 0% 0% 5% 97% 0% 0% 3%

Muskoka Lakes 97% 0% 0% 3% 98% 0% 0% 1%

District Total 84% 2% 2% 12% 83% 2% 3% 13%

Source: Statistics Canada Census data. Figures have been rounded and may not add to 100%.

The greatest proportions of higher density housing forms are in the Towns of Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Huntsville, reflecting the more urban nature of these communities.

Conversely, the Townships of Georgian Bay, Lake of Bays and Muskoka Lakes exhibit very high levels of single detached dwellings as a component of total housing stock.

The apartment category includes duplex and secondary-suite units. Apartment units listed as being part of the Townships or other rural areas are typically secondary units to ground-oriented buildings.

Recent medium-density rowhouse projects in the Township of Georgian Bay may indicate a market appetite for additional higher-density, compact and affordable housing forms in areas that have typically been dominated by single-detached buildings.

E. SEASONAL UNIT GROWTH HAS OUTPACED SEASONAL POPULATION GROWTH

Seasonal dwelling units have long played a significant role in the District, with many residents coming to Muskoka to escape the hustle and bustle of urban life or to enjoy the cottage lifestyle and natural amenities the region has to offer. Seasonal residents are a significant contributor to Muskoka’s economy and land needs and, as such, need to be accounted for when conducting growth related planning in the District. As of 2017, seasonally occupied dwellings accounted for approximately 47% of the District’s total housing stock.

15

HEMSON

Seasonal residents typically maintain a primary place of residence either elsewhere in the District, or beyond, where they reside for the majority of the year. Given that these residents may not be living in their seasonal dwelling during the Census enumeration, the Census often fails to properly account for this component of Muskoka’s population. To address this, the District periodically conducts a Second Home Study (the most recent being 2017), distributing a voluntary survey to properties identified by MPAC as being seasonal in use4. The Second Home Study provides valuable insight into occupancy patterns of seasonal dwelling units and the socio-demographic characteristics of their residents, and is a key resource for understanding changes in seasonal population and forecasting its future growth5.

As shown in Table 6 on the following page, the estimated seasonal population6 has increased at varying rates since the District started conducting the Second Home Study in 1973, growing by 10,000 seasonal residents in total since then. Prior to 2004, studies were conducted intermittently, during which growth in seasonal population was relatively modest, adding only 4,200 seasonal residents in three decades. This pattern changed significantly in recent periods, when the District grew by 7,100 seasonal residents in the relatively short period between 2004 and 2013. Growth in the period that followed deviated again, this time resulting in a decline in seasonal population between the 2013 and 2017 Second Home Studies.

4 The Muskoka District Second Home Study is distributed to residences classified by MPAC as “Seasonal Residential” in their assessment data codes (i.e. 391, 392, and 395). This does not include most, if not all, fractional ownership dwelling units, such as trailer parks or resort-related time share units, in the seasonal household estimate. 5 The Second Home Study is conducted via a voluntary survey and is not an official census. Like all survey-based studies, the data from the survey is subject to a number of limitations and assumptions. The response rate for the 2017 Second Home Study was 16.1%, which is high enough to yield results which may be considered statistically significant. Despite its limitations, the Study is an industry-leading practice that provides far more reliable data than is typically available in other areas of the Province with regards to seasonal population estimates and housing trends. 6 For the purposes of estimating seasonal population, the Second Home Study defines a seasonal household taking into account both immediate and extended family members. Extended family members are considered to be seasonal residents if they reside in a second home for a cumulative time period between 30 and 180 days in a typical year.

16

HEMSON

Table 6: Historical Estimated Seasonal Population, District of Muskoka, 1973-2017

Year Population Net Change CAGR 1973 71,900 - - 1984 74,000 2,100 0.26%2004 76,100 2,100 0.14%2013 83,200 7,100 1.00%2017 81,900 (1,300) (0.39%)

1973-2017 ‐ 10,000 0.30%

Source: District of Muskoka Second Home Study, 2017. Note: Figures have been rounded and may not add to total.

Prior to the most recent Second Home Study, the population estimate tracked relatively closely with unit growth, as shown in Table 7. However, despite experiencing relatively steady growth in seasonal units between 2013 and 2017, the estimated seasonal population declined over this period.

Table 7: Historical Seasonal Units, District of Muskoka, 1973-2017

Year Seasonal Units Net Change CAGR 1973 18,430 - - 1984 19,460 1,030 0.50%2004 20,570 1,110 0.28%2013 22,350 1,780 0.93%2017 22,880 530 0.59%

1973-2017 - 4,450 0.49%

Source: District of Muskoka Second Home Study, 2017. Note: Figures have been rounded and may not add to total.

This decrease in estimated population is the result of a notable decline in occupancy patterns amongst seasonal resident. Respondents to the 2017 survey indicated that fewer family members were living in Muskoka on a seasonal basis. The exact reason for this is uncertain based on the data available at this time, and could potentially be caused by a number of factors. These include aging demographics amongst seasonal residents resulting in smaller extended family units as children move away or acquire their own seasonal dwellings, in part made possible by the rise of the sharing economy and services such as AirBnB that can subsidize the cost of a second home.

17

HEMSON

The change in occupancy patterns for the District and Area Municipalities is detailed in Table 8. Though there were some variations in PPUs at the Area Municipal level, a factor explained by the smaller sample size at this geographic level, the District-wide seasonal occupancy patterns were relatively stable prior to 2017. Based on the data available, it is unclear if this decline in PPUs is an outlier or the start of a continuing trend.

Table 8: Seasonal Occupancy Patterns by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2004-2017

Municipality Persons Per Unit

2004 2013 2017

Bracebridge 3.59 3.59 3.41 Gravenhurst 3.60 3.75 3.36 Huntsville 3.72 3.24 3.23 Georgian Bay 3.65 3.59 3.63 Lake of Bays 3.62 3.82 3.40 Muskoka Lakes 3.72 3.93 3.74

District Total 3.70 3.74 3.58

Source: District of Muskoka Second Home Study, 2004, 2013 & 2017.

The location of the District’s seasonal housing stock and patterns of growth is detailed in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Seasonal Units by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2004-2017

Municipality 2004 2013 2017

2004-13 2013-17 Share of District-wide 04-17 Growth

Net Change

CAGR Net

Change CAGR

Bracebridge 1,970 2,090 2,130 120 0.66% 40 0.48% 7%

Gravenhurst 3,040 3,350 3,370 310 1.08% 20 0.15% 14%

Huntsville 1,670 2,110 2,170 440 2.63% 60 0.70% 22%

Georgian Bay 4,020 4,450 4,550 430 1.14% 100 0.56% 23%

Lake of Bays 3,160 3,350 3,450 190 0.65% 100 0.74% 13%

Muskoka Lakes 6,710 7,010 7,220 300 0.49% 210 0.74% 22%

District Total 20,570 22,350 22,880 1,780 0.93% 530 0.59% 100%

Source: District of Muskoka Second Home Study, 2004, 2013 & 2017. Note: Figures have been rounded and may not add to total.

18

HEMSON

Key observations include the following:

The supply of seasonal dwelling units is dispersed across Muskoka, with slightly higher totals located in the Townships. Muskoka Lakes accounts for the largest share of the District’s seasonal housing stock, with nearly 32% of the 2017 total.

Growth in seasonal housing has been fairly evenly distributed across the Area Municipalities between 2004 and 2017.

Given the relatively small number of seasonal units at the Area Municipal level, the delivery of any one large residential development may skew local growth rates over a given period. This is of particular concern in Area Municipalities where urban commercial resorts are being proposed with resort-related residential components.

F. HISTORIC TRENDS IN HOUSING CONVERSION HAVE SHIFTED

Previous District Growth Strategies noted a trend in which, on a net basis, seasonal dwelling units were being converted to year-round use. The rationale for this trend was that a number of the District’s seasonal residents had chosen to retire to Muskoka and to live year-round in their previously seasonal units. Feedback received as part of the District’s 2017 Second Home Study suggested many other seasonal residents intend to do the same thing in time.

Analysis conducted as part of the 2009 and 2013 GS updates estimated this number equated to a net conversion rate of approximately 110 seasonal to year-round units per year in 2009, and to 80 in 2013. It was assumed that this trend would continue in the short to medium term as more of the “baby boom” generation retired to Muskoka, before gradually declining as their cottages reverted to seasonal use over time.

In testing the previous assumptions a longitudinal analysis of MPAC property codes was conducted, identifying changes in residential codes for each unique parcel in Muskoka between the years of 2011 an 2016. The analysis found a large number of conversions occurring in both directions over this period (both seasonal to year-round and year-round to seasonal) with a net change of 100 conversions from year-round to seasonal over the five year period, an average of 20 per year. A summary of estimated conversion rates by time period is provided in Table 10 on the following page.

19

HEMSON

Table 10: Estimated Annual Conversions of Seasonal to Year-Round Dwellings, District of Muskoka

Report Analysis Period Net Annual Conversions

2009 Growth Strategy: Phase 1 1996-2006 110

2013 Growth Strategy: Phase 2 2006-2013 80

2019 Growth Strategy 2011-2016 (20)

Source: Hemson Consulting using data from MPAC, District of Muskoka, and Watson and Associates

The previously observed trend for seasonal to year-round conversions may not be as prevalent as originally assumed.

The net conversion rate for the most recent period varies between Area Municipalities. For example, Lake of Bays and Muskoka lakes both experienced a higher net level of year-round to seasonal conversions between 2011 and 2016 (39 and 57, respectively). On the other hand, Bracebridge and Huntsville experienced a modest amount of seasonal to year-round conversions (4 and 12 over the 5-year period, respectively).7

Seasonal occupational patterns are more flexible than year-round occupied households, and may experience shifts and cyclicality over time. This cycle is generally understood as starting when owners of seasonal units retire to their cottages. As these residents age, health and mobility issues become increasingly important, often requiring a move to Urban Centres or other areas with a higher concentration of services. At this point the cottages are often returned to seasonal use as the owners either live year-round in urban areas, pass on the cottage to their children, or sell the units to newcomers seeking their own seasonal dwelling.

Given the changes noted in the most recent analysis, it is difficult to discern if this trend will continue or shift back in future periods. On net, it is assumed that the conversion cycle will result in a net zero impact over time.

7 It should be noted that these figures come from MPAC and do not line up exactly with the change in year-round unit count identified in the Statistics Canada Census over the same period. This is likely a result of differing assessment methodologies between the two organizations, but is considered close enough to be a reliable indicator.

20

HEMSON

G. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH HAS BEEN MODEST

Like most of Ontario, the District’s economic base was impacted by 2008 Financial Crisis and ensuing recession. While the provincial economy has since recovered from the downturn as demonstrated in Figure 6, job growth in Muskoka has been slower to return to pre-recession levels.

Figure 6: Ontario Employed Labour Force, Seasonally Adjusted, January 2008 to January 2018

Source: Statistics Canada. Table 14-10-0287 Labour force characteristics, monthly, seasonally adjusted.

As shown in Table 11 on the following page, between 2001 and 2006, the District added roughly 3,600 jobs, growing in total Place of Work employment8 by 13%. A significant share of this growth was lost in the following Census period as Muskoka experienced the fallout of the global recession. Led primarily by declines in the manufacturing, the District experienced a net loss of 2,100 jobs between 2006 and 2011. Since then, the District has begun to add jobs once more, though the rate of growth has been slow, with Muskoka adding 400 jobs on net between 2011 and 2016.

8 Place of Work employment refers to the number of individuals working within a jurisdiction (i.e. the number of jobs within the District and each of the Area Municipalities). It should not be confused with employment by Place of Residence (otherwise referred to as the labour force), which describes the employment patterns of those individuals residing within a jurisdiction (and may, in effect, work elsewhere). Unless otherwise stated, the term ‘employment’ in this report refers to Place of Work employment.

6,000

6,200

6,400

6,600

6,800

7,000

7,200

7,400

Jobs

(000

's)

2008‐09 Recession

21

HEMSON

Table 11: Historical Total Employment, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016

Year Total Employment Net Change CAGR

2001 26,800 - -

2006 30,400 3,600 2.55%

2011 28,300 (2,100) (1.42%)

2016 28,700 400 0.28%

2001-16 - 1,900 0.46%

Source: Hemson Consulting using data from Statistics Canada Census and NHS9. Note: Figures have been rounded.

The District of Muskoka has experienced some notable shifts in the composition of its economic base over the past 15 years. Employment changes by economic sector are illustrated in Figure 7 on the following page. The local manufacturing sector experienced the most notable loss of nearly 1,600 jobs over this period, mirroring a shift occurring across many Ontario communities away from traditional industries towards more services based-employment and public sector growth. At the same time, the losses in the manufacturing sector appear to have leveled off following the recession, with reasonable expectations for recovery in the sector, albeit quite slowly.

9 The data for 2011 come from the National Household Survey (NHS). The NHS was a voluntary-survey that replaced the long-form Census in 2011. 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. As a result it should still be used as the standard for 2011 base data, while understanding its potential pitfalls.

22

HEMSON

Figure 7: Change in Place of Work Employment by Sector10, District of Muskoka, 2001-16

Source: Hemson Consulting, based on Statistics Canada Census of Canada 2001, 2006, 2016

and 2011 National Household Survey. Note: * Primary Services includes: Forestry, Mining and Utilities.

** Other Services includes Other Services (excluding Public Administration), and Administrative and support, waste management and remediation.

Muskoka’s accommodation and food services sector also experienced a notable loss in employment over this period, primarily due to lower commercial tourism related activity during the recession. Demand in this sector has yet to demonstrate significant recovery, though applications to develop and expand commercial resorts in Muskoka Lakes and Huntsville indicate the potential for significant job growth for this sector in the future.

Job losses in these two sectors have largely been offset by growth in other sectors, including construction, retail trade, and professional services, among others. Growth in the health care sector leads all others, having added over 800 jobs between 2001

10 Employment sectors are defined per the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 2-digit codes.

Other Services**Public Administration

Arts, Entertainment and Rec.Accom. and Food Services

Health CareEducation

Information, Professional & Mgmt.Finance Insurance & Real Estate

Transportation WarehousingRetail Trade

Wholesale TradeManufacturing

ConstructionPrimary Industries*

23

HEMSON

and 2016. Growth in this sector is expected to remain strong as Muskoka’s local population continues to age.

Taken together, the changes in employment signify a shift in Muskoka’s economic profile, as demonstrated in Figure 8. Manufacturing, once a leading employment sector in the District, now accounts for less than half the share it did in 2001. At the same time, Muskoka’s economy is becoming slightly more diverse, with growth in numerous other sectors.

Figure 8: Change in Share of District Employment by Sector, 2001-16

Source: Hemson Consulting, based on Statistics Canada Census of Canada 2001, 2006, 2016

and 2011 National Household Survey. Note: * Primary Services includes: Forestry, Mining and Utilities.

** Other Services includes Other Services (excluding Public Administration), and Administrative and support, waste management and remediation.

It is also important to note that the Census often does not capture the full extent of seasonal employment in the District, as most of this employment commences after the date of Census enumeration. Much of it is in population-serving sectors such as retail,

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2001 2006 2011 2016

24

HEMSON

accommodation and food, and recreational uses, though exact figures are not tracked at a District or municipal level.

The overall change in employment in the 2006 to 2016 period was varied amongst the Area Municipalities. Table 12 provides the Place of Work employment by local municipality within Muskoka over the 2006 to 2016 period.

Table 12: Historical Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2006-2016

Municipality 2006 2011 2016 2006-11 2011-16

Share of District Total

Net Change

CAGR Net

Change CAGR 2006 2016

Bracebridge 9,370 8,920 8,770 (450) (0.98%) (150) (0.34%) 31% 31%

Gravenhurst 4,650 4,710 4,580 60 0.26% (130) (0.56%) 15% 16%

Huntsville 11,150 10,090 10,230 (1,060) (1.98%) 140 0.28% 37% 36%

Georgian Bay 1,030 980 980 (50 (0.99%) 0 0.00% 3% 3%

Lake of Bays 1,300 1,280 970 (20) (0.31%) (310) (5.40%) 4% 3%

Muskoka Lakes 2,930 2,340 3,210 (590) (4.40%) 870 6.53% 10% 11%

District Total 30,420 28,330 28,750 (2,090) (1.41%) 420 0.29% 100% 100%

Source: Hemson Consulting using data from Statistics Canada Census and NHS. Note: Figures have been rounded and may not add to total.

Key observations include: Most Area Municipalities within Muskoka experienced varying degrees of

negative employment growth between 2006 and 2011. Huntsville and Muskoka Lakes, and Bracebridge experienced the most significant losses over this period.

District-wide employment growth in 2011-2016 was driven primarily by a rebound in employment in Muskoka Lakes. The Township experienced growth across most sectors over this period, with significant gains in the Construction, Retail Trade, Accommodation and Food Services, and Arts, Entertainment and Recreation sectors.

Despite a significant reduction in employment between 2006 and 2011, the Town of Huntsville remains the District’s leader in terms of share of overall employment. It is also the only municipality other than Muskoka Lakes to experience positive employment growth between 2011 and 2016.

25

HEMSON

Area Municipal shares of District total employment remain relatively unchanged over the ten-year period.

While information about Place of Work employment shows how many jobs are in the District, data on Resident Employed Labour Force indicates the number of residents of District of Muskoka that are employed, irrespective of whether their place of work is located within the District of Muskoka or elsewhere.

As shown in Table 13, the number of employed residents in the District grew by roughly 3,700 between 2001 and 2006; followed by a decline of 1,900 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, given the net growth of 1,200 noted in the following period of 2011-2016.

Table 13: Historical Resident Employed Labour Force, District of Muskoka, 2001-2016

Year Labour Force

UnemploymentResident Employed

Labour Force Net

Change CAGR

2001 28,000 9.5% 25,300 - -

2006 30,300 4.3% 29,000 3,700 2.77%

2011 29,900 9.2% 27,100 (1,900) (0.27%)

2016 30,500 7.1% 28,300 1,200 0.40%

2001-16 2,500 - 3,000 3,000 0.75%

Source: Hemson Consulting using data from Statistics Canada Census and NHS. Note: Figures are rounded and may not add to total.

A significant portion of Muskoka’s employed residents live and work within the District. Figure 9 and Figure 10 on the following page demonstrate the share of employed residents commuting to employment outside of the District. Table 14 on page 26 provides greater detail on the balance between the resident employed labour force and workers that commute into Muskoka from elsewhere.

26

HEMSON

Figure 9: Where Muskoka Residents Commute to for Work, 2016

Source: Hemson Consulting using data from Statistics Canada Census

Figure 10: Where Employees Working in Muskoka Commute From, 2016

Source: Hemson Consulting using data from Statistics Canada Census

Within Muskoka District

84%

Simcoe County

6%

Toronto3%

Parry Sound District

2%

York Region1%

Other Areas4%

Within Muskoka District

81%

Simcoe County

6%

Toronto1%

Parry Sound District

7%

York Region1%

Other Areas4%

27

HEMSON

Table 14: Historical Employment Summary, District of Muskoka, 2001-16

Year Resident Employed

Labour Force Net External

Inflows Total

Employment Activity

Rate

2001 25,300 1,500 26,800 50.5%

2006 29,000 1,400 30,400 53.8%

2011 27,100 1,200 28,300 47.8%

2016 28,300 400 28,700 47.4%

2001-16 3,000 (1,100) 1,900 -

Source: Hemson Consulting using data from Statistics Canada Census and NHS. Note: Figures are rounded and may not add to total.

Key observations include:

The District unemployment rate has fluctuated over recent periods but appears to be declining once more, indicating a higher number of working-aged Muskoka residents are finding jobs either locally or in nearby communities.

For the most part, Muskoka residents are commuting to job opportunities within the District of Muskoka, the largest concentration being in Huntsville. A number of the District’s residents also commute beyond Muskoka, primarily to Simcoe County and other markets to the south.

On net, Muskoka’s employment force is supplemented by an inflow of workers, with nearly 20% of employees commuting in from outside the District. The District of Parry Sound and Simcoe County are the largest contributors in this regard.

While still remaining a net inflow, the balance of in-commuters has declined as of the 2016 Census. Due to availability of data and reliability concerns with the 2011 NHS, the cause of this shift is unclear. As the local population continues to age, it is likely that the share of net in-commuters will rise to meet demand.

28

HEMSON

H. COMPARISON TO 2013 GS FORECASTS It is important to understand how recent growth in the District compares with the forecasts which formed the basis of the previous GS from 2013. Those projections were prepared on the basis of 2011 Census and National Household Survey data and forecast growth in population, housing and employment from a 2011 base to a 2041 horizon. A subsequent amendment to the Muskoka Official Plan via OPA 47 included adoption of the GS forecasts to a 2036 planning horizon.

A review of the 2013 GS indicates that the original forecasts were fairly accurate in their estimate for the levels of year-round population and housing growth that would occur over the 2011 to 2016 period. However, the forecasts slightly over-estimated the seasonal population, while under-estimating the growth in seasonally occupied housing units and the District’s 2016 employment, as shown in Table 15 below.

Table 15: Comparison of 2013 GS Forecast and Census Results for 2016

GS 2016 Forecast 1 2016 Result 2 Difference

Year-Round Population 61,000 60,600 (400)

Year-Round Households 25,300 25,400 100

Seasonal Population 83,000 81,900 (1,100)

Seasonal Households 22,200 22,900 700

Employment 27,900 28,800 900

Note: 1 2016 forecast prepared by Watson and Associates for 2013 Muskoka Growth Strategy Update.

2 2016 total results for permanent population, regular occupied households and employment from Statistics Canada Census 2016, totals for seasonal population and seasonal households from District of Muskoka 2017 Second Home Study. Figures have been rounded.

Despite the modest slowdown in population growth which occurred since 2011, the 2013 GS forecasts were relatively close in terms of year-round population and household growth. However, the slowing growth rate and aging demographic will likely have a more serious effect on later forecast periods, which the 2013 GS estimated to grow at a rate that would require significant increases to the District’s rate of in-migration, despite it having remained relatively stable over the past 25 years.

29

HEMSON

The minor divergence between the 2013 GS forecast and 2016 actuals for seasonal population and households is understandable given the significant shift in occupancy patterns noted in the 2017 Second Home Study and the shift in conversion patterns. Prior to the 2017 Study, seasonal occupancy patterns had remained relatively constant around 3.7 PPU, providing the previous GS with limited reason to anticipate the decline. In the same regard, the trend of dwelling units tending to convert from seasonal to year-round use on net, noted in both the 2009 GS and 2013 GS, appears to have shifted in the other direction over the most recent period, resulting in more seasonal units than was originally predicted.

Though relatively minor, the divergence between the 2013 GS forecasts of 2016 population, housing and employment in the District and the actual change that occurred between 2011 and 2016 highlights the importance of regular forecast reviews. The current GS update provides a key opportunity to re-examine growth and change and to ensure the District 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 District-wide results.

30

HEMSON

III DISTRICT-WIDE FORECASTS INDICATE MODERATE GROWTH TO 2046

This section provides an overview of the forecast method and assumptions underlying the District-wide forecasts. The forecasts were prepared to a 30-year horizon, which is generally considered sufficient for the purposes of long-range infrastructure and growth management planning. Three forecast scenarios were prepared based on varying assumptions about future levels of in-migration and economic activity. A low, a reference and a high scenario provide a range on the District’s future growth outlook. The reference scenario has been presented to and reviewed by Provincial, District and Area Municipal staff and represents the most likely outcome for Muskoka.

A. FORECAST METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS

The forecasts of year-round population, households and employment at the District-level are based upon a standard cohort-survival forecast model. The approach begins by forecasting population and employment based on a number of key assumptions and national and provincial economic and demographic trends.

1. Core Forecast 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 of population in Urban Centres; and demographic change, such as aging of the population. The forecasts of District of Muskoka population, household and employment growth begin with these core economic and social parameters, along with Muskoka specific considerations, such as the nature of the seasonal population and its relation to the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) and other nearby communities.

31

HEMSON

The current broad economic and demographic trends are expected to continue over the forecast horizon. 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 and Ontario, but with much of that growth occurring in the major urban centres. The forecast method is illustrated in Figure 11 on the following page.

Growth in Muskoka will continue to be largely dependant on intra-provincial migration based on the attraction of natural amenities and its distinct small town and cottage lifestyle. Like most of Ontario outside the major centres, Muskoka will continue to have out-migration of young adults seeking education and economic opportunities. In Muskoka’s case the young adult out migration is more than compensated for numerically by in-migration of early retirees and families with children. The effect of these patterns is that Muskoka will experience a more rapid population aging than larger cities which has consequential effects on housing demand and employment in Muskoka.

32

HEMSON

Figure 11: Forecast Method Diagram

Source: Hemson Consulting

33

HEMSON

2. Migration Is Key Forecast Assumption

Migration is already a key component of growth for the District of Muskoka, and will become an increasingly important factor through the forecast period.

Population growth is the result of three components: births, deaths and migration. Over the past 25 years, migration has come to represent the largest share of population growth throughout Ontario. In places where levels of natural increase (i.e. births minus deaths) continue to decline, and which, 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, there will be even fewer births going forward. Without in-migration, population in the District 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 Muskoka, are experiencing the out-migration of young adults. This is illustrated through the recent age-structure of the District’s migrants, shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Historical Migrant Age Structure, District of Muskoka, 2011-2016

Source: Hemson Consulting, with data from Statistics Canada 2011 & 2016 Census

34

HEMSON

3. Year-Round Population

The year-round population forecast for the District is based on information from a wide range of sources including the 2016 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 2016), aging them by five years (they become 25 to 29 in 2021), 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 Muskoka 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 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 year-round 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 District, as shown in Figure 13 on the following page. 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. Muskoka is anticipated to experience net in-migration to the forecast horizon.

Migration patterns are primarily shaped by Muskoka’s proximity to the GGH, and the socio-economic relationship it has with the District. As the core of the broader economic region, the GGH acts as a key attraction for younger Muskoka residents looking for education and employment opportunities. Conversely, the GGH is the primary source of Muskoka’s of in-migration of older year-round and seasonal residents as they seek recreation and retirement opportunities.

35

HEMSON

Figure 13: Components of Migration, Net Migration by 5-year Period, District of Muskoka, 1986-2016

Source: Hemson Consulting, using data from Statistics Canada Annual Demographic Survey

4. Year-round Occupied Households

The forecast for year-round occupied households is based upon age-specific household formation data for Muskoka from the 2016 Census. 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 2016 Census 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 rising 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 people live and the healthier they remain in old age, the longer they remain in ground-related housing.

Age-specific household formation rates and housing unit type preferences by age for 2016 are held relatively constant over the course of the forecast. A modest decrease in single-detached headship rates assumed (i.e. roughly one-half of a percent per census period) being offset by a rise in more compact and affordable form types (i.e. row houses, apartments). This assumption is based off of recent development patterns and consultations with local and District staff, indicating a growing need for more affordable housing choices.

(1,000)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1986-91 1991-96 1996-01 2001-06 2006-11 2011-16

Inter-provincial Inter-national Intra-provincial

36

HEMSON

When considered in conjunction with the historic declines in occupancy patterns discussed in previous sections, this gradual shift in housing preference is anticipated to contribute towards the trend of declining PPUs at the District level, requiring an increased number of housing units relative to total year-round population over time.

5. Seasonal Population and Households

The forecast for seasonal populations and households is driven by a number of factors. On the demand side, it is influenced by historical growth trends in seasonal dwelling units, population growth and economic conditions in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and other regions where seasonal Muskoka residents live on a permanent basis. On the supply side, it is affected by the potential amount of waterfront land and urban resort-related residential units. A number of data sources were used to determine the various factors, including the District’s 2017 Second Home Study, MPAC data, local building permits, existing development approvals, Statistics Canada Census data, and United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs Population Division for markets outside of Canada. The location of regular residency for Muskoka’s seasonal residents is summarized in Table 16.

Table 16: Location of Regular Place of Residence of Seasonal Residents, District of Muskoka

Study Year 2004 2013 2017 Total Seasonal Residents 76,100 83,300 81,900

Greater Golden Horseshoe 72.4% 71.3% 64.0%

Muskoka District1 3.0% 2.2% 10.8%

Southwest Ontario 11.0% 10.6% 11.3%

Central Ontario 5.7% 5.4% 5.8%

Eastern Ontario 1.7% 2.1% 1.8%

Northern Ontario 0.3% 0.2% 0.4%

Other Province 1.4% 2.1% 1.7%

USA 4.1% 5.4% 3.7%

Other International 0.4% 0.8% 0.5%

Source: District of Muskoka Second Home Study, 2004, 2013 & 2017 Note: 1 Due to survey change in survey questions, Second Home Studies prior to 2017 may have

underreported the number of year-round Muskoka residents that also owned second homes in the District.

The base and forecast seasonal population employs the same approach that was applied in the 2013 GS, adopting an average number of persons per unit derived from the most recent Second Home Study (i.e. 2017). It is important to note that the average PPU results of the 2017 study of 3.58, a significant reduction from prior studies. There is

37

HEMSON

currently insufficient data available to determine if this decrease in PPUs is an outlier, or part of a continuing trend. Notwithstanding this, for the purposes of the forecast, the current PPU is assumed to remain constant over the forecast period.

Previous GS forecasts assumed a net conversion factor for seasonal to year-round that appears to have reversed in the recent period. While conversions from seasonal to year-round and vice versa do occur at a fairly regular rate across the District, and may vary from period to period and between Area Municipalities, the overall effect appears to be more negligible than previously assumed. In a general sense, this is indicative of the seasonal conversion cycle coming full circle over the long-term. Accordingly, the forecasts assume a net zero conversion factor at this time.

6. Employment

The employment forecast, while strongly influenced by local and regional factors that affect the economy in Muskoka, is primarily calculated based on the year-round population forecast, with age-specific labour force participation rates being applied to the population forecast and then adjusted for unemployment and commuting patterns.

The District’s employment forecast has been prepared based on 2016 Census employment data, and includes the following assumptions:

2016 commuting patterns gradually shift back to pre-recession patterns over the forecast horizon with increased in-commuting on net, however it is anticipated that Muskoka will continue to experience some out-commuting to job opportunities in the broader economic region, largely to Simcoe County;

2016 age- and sex-specific labour force participation rates (i.e. the share of population by age and sex considered to be actively working or looking for work) increase slightly in the short term with some baby-boomers choosing to remain in the workforce slightly longer than their predecessors, but otherwise remain stable over the remaining forecast period;

the 2016 unemployment rate of 7.1% declines gradually to approximately 6% over the forecast horizon, representing continued recovery from the economic disruption in the preceding census period; and

the 2016 activity rate (the ratio of employment to population within the District) of 47% remains relatively stable, declining marginally to 45% over the period to 2046 as a rising share of the local population enters retirement.

38

HEMSON

7. 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 District. The low scenarios assume net migration will remain near current levels, resulting in limited growth as the existing population ages. The high scenario assumes a substantial increase to in-migration, resulting in a compound annual growth rate closer to that which Muskoka experienced in historic periods of rapid growth. Similar assumptions regarding seasonal home ownership, broader economic activity, and net in-commuting have been made for the forecasts for seasonal population and employment.

B. DISTRICT-WIDE REFERENCE FORECAST RESULTS

The District-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 District of Muskoka based on our current understanding of economic and demographic trends affecting the pattern and pace of growth and development in the District. The recommended reference scenario forms the basis for allocations of growth to municipalities within Muskoka. The results are shown at five-year intervals corresponding with the Census, from a 2016 to 2046 horizon.

39

HEMSON

1. Forecast Year-round Population

Table 17 indicates the forecast results for District of Muskoka’s year-round total population (excluding Census Net Undercoverage). As shown, the District is anticipated to add roughly 15,000 new year-round residents between 2016 and 2046, growing by nearly 25% under the reference forecast scenario by the forecast horizon. This equates to a compound annual growth rate of 0.74%.

Table 17: Forecast Year-Round Population by Forecast Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Year Forecast Year-round Population Year-round Population Growth

Low Reference High Low Reference High

2016 60,600 60,600 60,600 - - -

2021 63,000 63,500 63,900 2,400 2,900 3,300

2026 65,000 66,200 67,700 2,000 2,700 3,800

2031 67,000 69,300 71,700 2,000 3,100 4,000

2036 68,100 71,700 75,600 1,100 2,400 3,900

2041 68,800 73,800 79,400 700 2,100 3,800

2046 68,900 75,600 82,900 100 1,800 3,500

2016-2046 8,300 15,000 22,300

Compound Annual Growth Rate 0.43% 0.74% 1.05%

Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures are rounded and may not add.

The aging demographic trend is anticipated to continue over the forecast horizon which will result in declining average household size. The District’s forecast Age Structure is illustrated in Figure 14 on the following page, with a detailed breakdown by 10-year forecast period provided in Appendix A.

40

HEMSON

Figure 14: Forecast Age Structure, District of Muskoka, 2016 & 2046

Source: Hemson Consulting

2. Forecast Year-round Housing

Year-round occupied housing growth will continue to outpace growth in population over the forecast horizon, owing to the decline in average household size, again, mainly a result of the aging population. As shown in Table 18 on the following page, under the reference forecast scenario, the District of Muskoka is anticipated to add approximately 7,700 year-round occupied housing units over the 2016 to 2046, representing growth of 30% over the forecast horizon. This equates to a compound annual growth rate of 0.89%.

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0%

0 - 4 5 - 9

10 - 1415 - 1920 - 2425 - 2930 - 3435 - 3940 - 4445 - 4950 - 5455 - 5960 - 6465 - 6970 - 7475 - 7980 - 8485 - 89

90+

2016 Current

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0%

0 - 4 5 - 9

10 - 1415 - 1920 - 2425 - 2930 - 3435 - 3940 - 4445 - 4950 - 5455 - 5960 - 6465 - 6970 - 7475 - 7980 - 8485 - 89

90+

2046 Forecast

41

HEMSON

Table 18: Forecast Total Year-Round Dwelling Units by Forecast Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Year Forecast Year-round Dwelling Units Year-round Dwelling Unit Growth


2016 25,400 25,400 25,400 - - -

2021 26,800 27,000 27,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

2026 27,900 28,400 29,100 1,100 1,400 1,900

2031 28,900 29,900 31,000 1,000 1,500 1,900

2036 29,600 31,200 32,900 700 1,300 1,900

2041 30,000 32,200 34,700 400 1,000 1,800

2046 30,100 33,100 36,500 100 900 1,800

2016-2046 4,700 7,700 11,100


Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures are rounded and may not add to total.

3. Forecast Seasonal Population and Housing

Seasonal population and household growth is anticipated to grow at a slightly increased rate in the near term owing to an increase in the number of building permits and approved developments which to include a share of urban resort-related residential units in proposed commercial resort developments. The growth rate for Muskoka’s seasonal population and new units is predicted to decline over time as aging demographic trends in the GTHA and other areas where Muskoka’s seasonal residents regularly reside will likely result in reduced demand over the long-term. As shown in Table 19 and Table 20 on the following page, the District of Muskoka is anticipated to add 11,700 new seasonal residents in 3,300 additional seasonal units, representing a growth of 14% by the horizon of the reference scenario forecast. This equates to a compound annual growth rate of 0.45%.

42

HEMSON

Table 19: Forecast Total Seasonal Population by Forecast Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Year Forecast Seasonal Population Seasonal Population Growth


2016 81,900 81,900 81,900 - - -

2021 84,100 84,700 85,100 2,200 2,800 3,200

2026 85,700 86,900 88,000 1,600 2,200 2,900

2031 87,100 88,800 90,800 1,400 1,900 2,800

2036 88,300 90,500 93,200 1,200 1,700 2,400

2041 89,200 92,100 95,300 900 1,600 2,100

2046 90,000 93,600 97,300 800 1,500 2,000

2016-2046 8,100 11,700 15,400



Table 20: Forecast Total Seasonal Dwelling Units by Forecast Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Year Forecast Seasonal Dwelling Units Seasonal Dwelling Unit Growth


2016 22,900 22,900 22,900 - - -

2021 23,500 23,700 23,800 600 800 900

2026 23,900 24,300 24,600 400 600 800

2031 24,300 24,800 25,400 400 500 800

2036 24,700 25,300 26,000 400 500 600

2041 24,900 25,700 26,600 200 400 600

2046 25,100 26,200 27,200 200 500 600

2016-2046 2,300 3,300 4,300



43

HEMSON

4. Forecast Employment

Employment is anticipated to continue growing at a somewhat increased rate following the post-recession lull, driven primarily by continued demand for healthcare and other population-serving sectors in relation to the growing population. As shown in Table 21, total employment in Muskoka is anticipated to grow by 5,400 jobs, or 19% over the 2016 to 2046 period under the reference scenario. This equates to a compound annual growth rate of 0.58%.

Table 21: Forecast Total Employment by Scenario, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Year Forecast Total Employment Employment Growth


2016 28,700 28,700 28,700 - - -

2021 29,300 29,700 30,000 600 1,000 1,300

2026 29,500 30,400 31,500 200 700 1,500

2031 29,600 31,200 33,100 100 800 1,600

2036 29,700 32,100 35,100 100 900 2,000

2041 29,800 33,000 37,200 100 900 2,100

2046 30,100 34,100 39,100 300 1,100 1,900

2016-2046 1,400 5,400 10,400



Consistent with the recommendation concerning the most likely outcome and the appropriate basis for growth planning in Muskoka, it is recommended the District endorse the reference forecast scenario. This forms the basis of the local allocations of growth to municipalities within Muskoka and subsequent update to the District of Muskoka Development Charges Background Study.

44

HEMSON

IV LOCAL ALLOCATION OF FORECAST GROWTH BASED ON POLICY, MARKET DEMAND AND SUPPLY

The District-wide reference growth forecast is allocated to local municipalities in Muskoka 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 stakeholders.

A. 2014 PPS SETS THE FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH ALLOCATIONS AND PLANNING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

The update to the GS 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 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 Muskoka. 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 District, given the large scale of the planning area. Muskoka has its population spread out over a large area, which can present challenges for all kinds of hard and soft infrastructure. 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; key attributes of Muskoka.

New housing and other development is to be focused on existing settlement areas. Limited resource-based recreational uses and year-round residential development 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

45

HEMSON

and that development in dispersed rural communities may not be in the long-term fiscal interest of the municipality or the Province.

Settlement area expansions are only to be considered through comprehensive reviews. The preparation of the updated GS gives the Area Municipalities of Muskoka an additional opportunity to consider their future land needs within the context of the updated District-wide planning framework. The PPS indicates that it is important for municipalities to consider the need for expansion, capacity of planned or available infrastructure, and alternative directions for growth that consider redevelopment and intensification before greenfield development.

The distribution of growth within the District must be consistent with direction in the PPS. 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. Limits are intended to be placed on growth in rural and privately serviced areas, while most future development will be directed through to serviced settlement areas.

B. LOCAL GROWTH ALLOCATIONS RESPECT LOCAL MARKET, CAPACITY AND POLICY DIRECTIONS

In the context of the PPS, the forecasts were prepared at the District-level and distributed to Muskoka’s Area Municipalities with respect to a number of factors, including recent development trends, land and servicing capacities, and with regard to policy directions set out in the Muskoka Official Plan.

The six Area Municipalities of District of Muskoka include a range of serviced and unserviced community settlement areas at the local level as well as significant waterfront and rural lands. The Muskoka Official Plan designates areas serviced by municipal water and sewer services as Urban Centres or Special Policy Areas. Though each Urban Centre is different in terms of scale and function, these areas are expected to grow in population, providing a mix of housing choices within the identified limits of the community. They are also expected to service the areas outside the Urban Centre by offering a range of goods, services and employment opportunities.

46

HEMSON

The allocation of forecast growth to local municipalities within Muskoka is determined by applying shares of District-wide year-round and seasonal household growth to each local municipality. Consideration is given to Provincial, District 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 District 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 Muskoka’s Area Municipalities. The distribution of forecast growth through the District 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 District-wide outlook and local distribution of growth should be reviewed at regular intervals and updated as appropriate to reflect changes as new data become available.

1. Official Plan Amendment 47 and Local Growth Targets

On August 13, 2018, Muskoka District Council adopted Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 47, which makes a number of changes to the existing Muskoka Official Plan. One key change in the establishment of targets such that 70% of the District’s new year-round residential dwelling unit growth be directed to the Urban Centres, with specific targets for each Area Municipality. These targets were based on the findings of the previous 2009 and 2013 GS update reports, respective of development trends, land and servicing capacity, and provincial policy direction. The targets are listed in Table 22 on the following page.

47

HEMSON

Table 22: Year-round Dwelling Growth Targets by Urban Centre as a Percentage of Total Dwelling Unit Growth by Area Municipality

Area Municipality Percentage

Bracebridge 80%

Georgian Bay 80%

Gravenhurst 80%

Huntsville 60%

Lake of Bays 20%

Muskoka Lakes 70%

District Total 70%

Source: District of Muskoka, By-law 2018-40 Amendment 47 to MOP

The following communities are designated as Urban Centres:

Bracebridge (urban area) Gravenhurst (urban area) Huntsville (urban area) Hidden Valley (Huntsville)

Bala (Muskoka Lakes) Port Carling (Muskoka Lakes) MacTier (Georgian Bay) Port Severn (Georgian Bay) Baysville (Lake of Bays)

OPA 47 also sets targets for residential housing mix within the Urban Centres as outlined in the 2009 and 2013 GS. These targets are intended to apply on an aggregate basis across the designated growth areas within each Area Municipality’s Urban Centres and not necessarily to each individual site-specific development proposal, excluding existing draft approved or registered plans of subdivision. The housing mix targets are listed in Table 23 on the following page.

48

HEMSON

Table 23: Housing Mix Targets for New Year-round Residential Development in Designated Growth Areas by Area Municipality

Municipality Low Density Medium Density High Density

Bracebridge 70% 15% 15%

Gravenhurst 70% 15% 15%

Huntsville 60% 25% 10%

Georgian Bay 50% 45% 5%

Lake of Bays 85% 10% 5%

Muskoka Lakes 80% 15% 5%

District Total 70% 20% 10%

Source: District of Muskoka, By-law 2018-40 Amendment 47 to MOP

Each Area Municipality is responsible for planning for growth and change at the local municipal level, including directing forecast growth to their designated Urban Centres through their own official plans.

OPA 47 is currently awaiting Ministerial approval before going into force. Once approved, it may take some time before local Area Municipal policies are updated to incorporate and address the targets of the OPA. As such, it may take some time for policy to affect settlement patterns between serviced and unserviced communities and rural areas within the District.

Through consultation, Area Municipal staff indicated some concern that the growth targets may be difficult to achieve given recent development trends, servicing constraints, and the limits of land use planning and zoning to regulate between year-round and seasonal uses for new developments.

For the purposes of this Forecast and Growth Allocation Report, these targets are considered, with respect to recent development trends and planning approvals, in sub-municipal projections presented in Section V. These sub-municipal projections demonstrate the amount of growth in each Area Municipality that would be required within their serviced Urban Centres in order to achieve the targets listed in OPA 47.

A more comprehensive review of the year-round dwelling unit and housing mix targets will be conducted in the second part of the 2019 GS in order to determine if changes to the targets are required.

49

HEMSON

C. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE RISE

Using permit data, Figure 15 indicates residential construction activity within the District between 2008 and 2017. Single detached permits are estimated between year-round and seasonal use based on a cross-reference between Statistics Canada and MPAC data, and for the most part reinforces the pattern of growth observed in the Census.

Figure 15: Building Permits by Dwelling Type, District of Muskoka, 2008-2017

Source: Hemson Consulting, using building permit data from Statistics Canada, MPAC & Area

Municipalities.

Residential construction activity was relatively low for a number of years following the recession, which started in late 2008, but has been followed by a steady rise between 2013 and 2017, indicating an increased rate of growth is likely in the near term.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Singles Semis Rows Apartments Seasonal

50

HEMSON

The distribution of building permits by residential dwelling type also vary across the District. Estimated building permits11 by Area Municipality for year-round uses and seasonal uses, respectively, are shown in Figure 16 below, and Figure 17 on the following page.

Figure 16: Estimated Building Permits for Year-Round Use, by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2008-2017


Municipalities.

11 While some Area Municipalities track building permits by assumed use, most sources, including Statistics Canada, do not classify if a building permit is intended for year-round or seasonal occupancy. Building permit data provided by MPAC allows for cross referencing with assessment roll numbers to determine if the property is being taxed as a year-round or seasonal uses property. However, both MPAC and Area Municipal permit data appears to undercount or omit a number of multi-residential units which were counted by Statistics Canada over the most recent Census period. To address this Statistics Canada permit data has been compared against MPAC data in order to estimate the share of total new units which were intended for seasonal occupancy.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Bracebridge Gravenhurst Huntsville

Georgian Bay Lake of Bays Muskoka Lakes

51

HEMSON

Figure 17: Estimated Building Permits for Seasonal Use, by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2008-2017


Municipalities.

The greatest concentration of residential permit activity for year-round units over the past ten years has been in the Town of Huntsville (35%), followed by the Towns of Bracebridge (24%) and Gravenhurst (24%). Together, they account for 83% of permitted units. A significant portion of this growth is attributed to recent subdivision developments and to units in higher density built forms in the Urban Centres.

Most development activity in these Townships is associated with single family detached units, the majority of which MPAC data indicates are being occupied on a seasonal basis. The Township of Muskoka Lakes accounts for the largest share of estimated seasonal permit activity at 37%, with Georgian Bay and Lake of Bays seeing 17% and 20%, respectively. The Town of Gravenhurst has also seen a fair amount of seasonal related permit activity over the past 10-years, also accounting for approximately 14% of the District total. A summary of Area Municipal shares of the District’s overall building permit activity is provided in Table 24.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Bracebridge Gravenhurst Huntsville

Georgian Bay Lake of Bays Muskoka Lakes

52

HEMSON

Table 24: Estimated Share of District Residential Building Permits by Use, District of Muskoka, 2008-2018

Area Municipality Estimated Year-round Permits

Estimated Seasonal Permits

All Permits

Bracebridge 24% 3% 16%

Gravenhurst 24% 14% 20%

Huntsville 35% 10% 25%

Georgian Bay 5% 17% 9%

Lake of Bays 4% 20% 9%

Muskoka Lakes 9% 37% 19%

Source: Hemson Consulting, using building permit data from Statistics Canada, MPAC & Area Municipalities. Figures have been rounded and may not total 100%.

D. SIGNIFICANT SUPPLY OF UNITS IN DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS

Future growth allocations also take into account the number of units in plans of subdivision and condominium descriptions, including those recently registered plans, those at the draft approved stage, and complete applications. A summary of potential future unit supply in plans of subdivision and condominium description for each Area Municipality is included in Table 25.

Table 25: Residential Units in Plans of Subdivision and Condominium Descriptions by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka

Municipality Recently

Registered1 Draft

Approved Complete

Application Municipal

Total

Est. Year-round

Est. Seasonal

Bracebridge 65 615 95 775 775 0

Gravenhurst 0 1,060 0 1,060 825 235

Huntsville 40 2,780 75 2,900 2,045 855

Georgian Bay 0 685 0 685 435 250

Lake of Bays 0 120 0 120 65 55

Muskoka Lakes 0 0 45 45 0 45

District Total 105 5,260 215 5,580 4,140 1,440

Source: District of Muskoka, Area Municipalities Note: Inventory as of December 2018. Excludes applications under appeal to LPAT and projects

in Minett. 1 Recently Registered projects include projects registered in 2018.

53

HEMSON

In a general sense, plans of subdivision and condominium description provide a relatively reliable indicator regarding near term development potential. However, these must be treated with some caution, as not all approved projects will be built out in the short-term, or with the exact number of units specified in the original application. To this point, a number of projects in Muskoka have remained at the draft approved stage, in some instances for over twenty years awaiting favourable market conditions before proceeding registration.

In reviewing the District’s plans of subdivision and condominium description, Area Municipal and District staff input was considered regarding the estimated time for projects to come to market, and the anticipated split of units between year-round and seasonal use. The District also recently passed a by-law that limits the period of draft approval extension to no more than 10-years, which should improve registration timelines, limit land speculation, and ensure municipal servicing capacity is available for projects that are performing.

It is important to note that this analysis does not include any projects that have been appealed to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal, nor does it include projects located in the Resort Village of Minett, which is currently under an interim control by-law passed on May 18, 2018. Most of these projects are primarily commercial in nature, but could contain sizeable resort-related residential uses.

E. UPDATED LAND SUPPLY INVENTORY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS

An updated land supply inventory has been prepared based on District, Area Municipal and MPAC data. The inventories are based on property data provided by MPAC and Official Plan policies, with a respect to environmentally protected areas and existing plans of subdivision and condominium description, and updated in an iterative process working in consultation with District and Area Municipal planning staff. For Area Municipal inventories, 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 differences in figures between MPAC and Area Municipal sources were observed and likely derive from the timing

54

HEMSON

of data updates and/or varied classification of parcels. To address this, Area Municipal staff were asked to review the vacant land inventory to clarify if and where parcels were misclassified, missing, or needed to be removed due to other constraints that were not previously noted. The District land supply inventory is broadly categorized under the following designations, respective of the Settlement Pattern in the adopted Muskoka Official Plan: Urban Centres – settlement areas that offer a range of municipal servicing,

including water and wastewater, and are intended to be the focus of growth through development and intensification;

Communities – established settlement areas generally function as service centres for the immediate rural and waterfront areas. They feature limited hard and soft services, and are expected to grow more slowly and at a density that can be serviced with private individual services;

Special Policy Areas – areas outside of Urban Centres where municipal water and/or sewage services have historically been extended. Each of these areas is identified within the Muskoka Official Plan for specific industrial, recreational or resort nodes, transportation corridors, or unique residential developments.

Waterfront – lots outside of Urban Centres and Communities that are generally within 150 metres of any standing body of water greater than 8 hectares in area or any substantive river. These are sensitive environmental areas, support major recreational resources, and are expected to be primarily for seasonally occupied uses; and

Rural – this designation applies to all lands outside of settlement areas not directly identified as being subject to any other strategic land use designations in the Muskoka Official Plan.

For the purposes of assessing the District’s prospective land supply against forecast residential demand, the land supply analysis considers vacant land within Urban Centres and Communities (in terms of total, gross and net developable area), as these areas are intended to be the focus of growth under the direction of the PPS and Muskoka Official Plan, as adopted. Waterfront and Rural designated lands are assessed

55

HEMSON

in terms of number of vacant lots, limited to those that are accessible by existing roads and of sufficient size to accommodate development on private on-site services.

Not all vacant land is considered developable. As part of the analysis, each site in the identified MPAC inventory has been assessed against a number of ‘take-outs’ to determine the gross amount of vacant land available for development. These ‘take-outs’ include lands designated as Natural Heritage Systems or environmentally protected lands.

Additionally, lands in plans of subdivision that have not yet received registration are also removed from the total inventory as ‘take-outs’ 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 District as appropriate in order to ensure the adequacy of servicing allocations and capacity.

The results of the District land supply inventory are shown in Table 26 below, and Table 27 and Table 28 on the following page.

Table 26: Vacant Residential Land Supply

Municipality

Urban Centres Communities Outside Communities1

Total Vacant

Take-Outs2

Gross Vacant

Total Vacant

Take-Outs2

Gross Vacant

Waterfront Lots

Rural Lots

Bracebridge 543.2 135.4 407.9 39.6 4.6 35.0 295 967

Gravenhurst 269.1 86.5 182.6 91.5 5.7 85.8 280 834

Huntsville 552.2 277.0 275.2 414.7 126.8 287.9 288 1,330

Georgian Bay 170.9 85.8 85.2 74.2 23.4 50.8 586 1,233

Lake of Bays 31.1 2.5 28.6 213.1 137.0 76.0 606 619

Muskoka Lakes 110.6 7.7 102.9 213.0 155.8 57.2 574 1,007

District Total 1,677.1 594.9 1,082.2 1,046.1 453.3 592.7 2,629 5,990

Source: Hemson Consulting, based on data from MPAC and the District of Muskoka. Note: 1 Rural and waterfront lots are only counted if they are a minimum of 0.8 ha in area with

road access. 2 Take-outs include lands designated Natural Heritage System and draft approved and recently completed plans of subdivision and condominium description.

56

HEMSON

Table 27: Vacant Commercial and Institutional Land Supply

Municipality

Urban Centres Communities / Rural

Total Vacant

Take-Outs1

Gross Vacant

Total Vacant

Take-Outs1

Gross Vacant

Bracebridge 200.1 22.9 177.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gravenhurst 12.6 0.0 12.6 0.1 0.0 0.1

Huntsville 37.1 0.0 37.1 1.5 0.0 1.5

Georgian Bay 14.2 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lake of Bays 1.0 0.0 1.0 20.4 0.0 20.4

Muskoka Lakes 37.1 3.9 33.2 19.6 0.0 19.6

District Total 302.3 26.8 275.5 41.7 0.0 41.7

Table 28: Vacant Industrial Land Supply

Municipality

Urban Centres Communities

Total Vacant

Take-Outs1

Gross Vacant

Total Vacant

Take-Outs1

Gross Vacant

Bracebridge 133.0 0.0 133.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gravenhurst 8.6 0.2 8.4 0.1 0.0 0.1

Huntsville 37.3 1.1 36.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Georgian Bay 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lake of Bays 3.1 0.0 3.1 1.7 0.0 1.7

Muskoka Lakes 8.1 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

District Total 191.2 1.3 189.9 1.8 0.0 1.8

Source: Hemson Consulting, based on data from MPAC and the District of Muskoka. Note: 1 Take-outs include lands designated Natural Heritage System and draft approved and

recently completed plans of subdivision and condominium description.

As shown, the District has nearly 1,100 gross ha of vacant residentially-designated lands within Muskoka’s designated Urban Centres, which are those with a full range of urban services and functions.

There is also a fairly substantial supply of vacant lands within the unserviced Communities. The Town of Huntsville and Townships of Lake of Bays and Muskoka Lakes have the largest total supply of land in these communities, though significant portions of these lands are designated as environmentally protected and are not considered appropriate for development. Accounting for all take-outs the unserviced Communities still contain nearly 600 gross ha of vacant land.

57

HEMSON

A significant amount of vacant commercial land is available in most of the Urban Centres, the bulk of which is located in Bracebridge. The Town of Huntsville and The Township of Muskoka Lakes also contains a large supply of vacant commercial land within their Urban Centres.

There is also a substantial supply of vacant industrial land located in Urban Centres, again with the greatest share located in Bracebridge.

The Townships of Georgian Bay and Lake of Bays currently have only a limited supply of vacant serviced industrial lands, with limited serviced options for commercial uses in Lake of Bays as well.

A significant amount of vacant rural area lots are also noted. This may accommodate some limited growth in residential and employment uses but, consistent with Provincial policy, they are not areas to be considered for significant future growth.

1. Residential Land Capacity Analysis

Most of the Area Municipal official plans designated a maximum density of 20 units per gross ha for low density residential areas, with up to a maximum of 60 units per gross ha in high density area. However, based on historic development patterns, current zoning, local character and geographical constrains, few developments are likely to develop near the density limits listed in the Area Municipal official plans.

To test a more likely outcome, a range of densities was applied to the vacant developable residential land inventory as a basis for determining the potential unit capacity within each Area Municipality. The density ranges demonstrate a range of development patterns, from more dispersed rural style common in Muskoka’s smaller communities through to more urban plans of subdivision and condominium description that have been recently built in the larger towns.

For the purposes of testing, a net to gross adjustment was made, reducing the gross developable land supply by a factor of 40%, an industry standard, to provide for land development and infrastructure needs. The estimated capacity of vacant designated lands to accommodate residential growth in the Urban Centres and Communities of each Area Municipality in Muskoka is shown in Table 29 and Table 30 on the following page. The range of densities listed in these tables represents an average density which is likely achievable for each respective Area Municipality. Where a density is too high or too low for that Area Municipality based on policy and development trends, that density range is listed as not applicable (n/a).

58

HEMSON

Table 29: Vacant Residential Land Supply Capacity in Urban Centres, by Area Municipalities

Municipality Vacant Residential Unit Capacity at Density Range Gross ha Net ha1 4 8 15 20 25

Bracebridge 407.9 244.7 n/a n/a 3,671 4,895 6,118

Gravenhurst 182.6 109.5 n/a n/a 1,643 2,191 2,739

Huntsville 275.2 165.1 n/a n/a 2,476 3,302 4,127

Georgian Bay 85.2 51.1 204 409 766 1,022 n/a

Lake of Bays 28.6 17.1 69 137 257 n/a n/a

Muskoka Lakes 102.9 61.7 247 494 926 1,234 n/a

District Total2 1,082.2 649.3 8,310 8,830 9,740 12,901 15,498

Table 30: Vacant Residential Land Supply Capacity in Communities, by Area Municipality

Municipality Vacant Residential Unit Capacity at Density Range

Gross ha Net ha1 4 8 15 20 25

Bracebridge 35.0 21.0 84 168 315 420 n/a

Gravenhurst 85.8 51.5 206 412 773 1,030 n/a

Huntsville 287.9 172.7 691 1,382 2,591 3,455 n/a

Georgian Bay 50.8 30.5 122 244 457 n/a n/a

Lake of Bays 76.0 45.6 182 365 n/a n/a n/a

Muskoka Lakes 57.2 34.3 137 275 515 n/a n/a

District Total2 592.7 355.6 1,423 2,845 5,015 6,242 n/a

Source: Hemson Consulting, based on municipal data and consultations with municipal staff. Note: 1 60% net to gross adjustment.

2 District total count includes the sum of units at the density identified in that column. If a municipality is identified as not being likely to achieve that density, the total from the next highest applicable density for that Area Municipality is used.

Based on the net vacant residential supply and the density assumptions applied, there is fairly significant unit capacity District-wide and within each of the Area Municipalities in all residential land use designations.

There may also be additional residential development capacity for some of the municipalities that has not been captured by the analysis – 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 District’s overall unit potential.

Conversely, the extent to which servicing capacity may place limits on growth for some of Muskoka’s Urban Centres could reduce the ultimate unit potential.

59

HEMSON

The capacity estimate gives an indication of the range on unit growth that could potentially be accommodated within the existing residentially designated supply. This is in addition to the number of units already identified in draft approved and recently completed plans of subdivision and condominium description identified in the previous section. Given the significant capacity identified, it is evident that the District and the Area Municipalities will have more than sufficient designated lands to accommodate residential growth potential through to the 2046 forecast horizon, as is demonstrated in Section V.

2. Industrial Land Capacity Analysis

Analysis was also undertaken of the supply of vacant designated industrial lands in order to assess the capacity to accommodate more traditional types of employment growth within the District. 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 10, 15 and 20 jobs per net ha was applied to the adjusted net supply. The results are shown in Table 31.

Table 31: Vacant Industrial Land Supply Capacity by Area Municipality

Municipality Vacant Industrial Land (ha)

Employment at Density Range(jobs per net ha)

Gross Net1 Adjusted2 10 15 20

Bracebridge 133.0 106.4 90.4 904 1,356 1,808

Gravenhurst 8.5 6.8 5.8 58 87 116

Huntsville 36.2 29.0 24.6 246 369 493

Georgian Bay 1.1 0.9 0.8 8 12 15

Lake of Bays 4.8 3.8 3.3 33 49 65

Muskoka Lakes 8.1 6.5 5.5 55 82 110

District Total* 191.7 153.3 130.3 1,303 1,955 2,607


2 15% adjustment for underutilization and long-term vacancy.

Based on the density assumptions applied, there is more than an adequate amount of designated industrial land within the District to accommodate growth in employment land employment (traditional types of employment such as manufacturing and other industrial-oriented uses).

The bulk of the vacant industrial land supply is located in the Town of Bracebridge, followed by Huntsville, Gravenhurst and Muskoka Lakes, providing

60

HEMSON

these municipalities with the most flexibility to accommodate future industrial employment growth.

There is a more limited supply of vacant industrial land in the Townships of Georgian Bay and Lake of Bays, limiting the growth outlook for this type of land use.

3. Commercial/Institutional Land Capacity Analysis

A similar analysis was undertaken to assess how much vacant commercial and institutional land is available in the District. Population-related employment growth is anticipated to occur primarily in commercial and institutional areas and throughout all designations in response to growth in the resident population. A net to gross adjustment of 80% was also applied to the gross developable vacant commercial land supply. Unlike industrial uses, this land is less likely to face long term vacancies or underutilization, so no additional adjustment is required. A density range of 30, 40 and 50 jobs per net ha was applied to demonstrate potential capacity based on typical commercial and institutional land uses, as shown in Table 32.

Table 32: Vacant Commercial Land Supply Capacity by Area Municipality

Municipality Vacant Commercial / Institutional Land (ha)

Employment at Density Range (jobs per net ha)

Gross Net1 30 40 50

Bracebridge 177.2 141.8 4,253 5,671 7,089

Gravenhurst 12.7 10.2 306 408 510

Huntsville 38.6 30.9 927 1,236 1,545

Georgian Bay 14.2 11.4 342 456 570

Lake of Bays 21.5 17.2 515 687 859

Muskoka Lakes 52.8 42.3 1,268 1,691 2,113

District Total* 317.1 253.7 7,611 10,148 12,685


Similar to vacant industrial lands, there appears to be a significant amount of designated commercial and institutional land within the District to accommodate growth in population-related employment.

The municipalities of Bracebridge, Huntsville and Muskoka Lakes also have the most vacant commercial land within their serviced Urban Centres. Some vacant commercial land is located outside of the serviced areas in Muskoka Lakes and Lake of Bays, and is primarily associated with resort developments.

61

HEMSON

4. Other / Rural-based Employment

Rural-based employment growth is expected to primarily occur outside of the Urban Centres and Communities as it is primarily recreational and tourism related in nature. However, some of this category may also locate in industrial and commercial lands on occasion, depending on the specific use.

5. No Fixed Place of Work Employment

One notable outcome of recent economic shifts in Ontario with specific importance to Muskoka is the decline of traditional employment sectors, such as manufacturing, being met by the rise of other sectors which are less reliant on a fixed place of work. In the case of Muskoka, the leading example is the rise of construction related employment, which often involves workers moving between job sites on a regular basis, but also may include numerous other sectors including in-home care givers and other mobile service providers. While the economic activity in these sectors will have some land needs associated with it, including material suppliers, workshops and other associated supporting uses, the rise of these types of jobs may result in a reduced amount of land being required to accommodate their activity. This is most likely to have an impact on industrial land uses, where the shift towards no fixed place of work has been most pronounced.

Taken together, the land supply inventories contain an adequate amount of vacant designated lands available to accommodate future population and employment growth on a District-wide basis. It is not anticipated that additional lands will need to be designated in order to meet the needs of expected growth under the updated GS 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 District.

F. CONSULTATION WITH AREA MUNICIPAL AND DISTRICT STAFF

Consultation was undertaken with District and Area Municipal staff in order to better understand growth and development trends from local perspectives, considering priorities, potential opportunities and constraints on growth. Staff at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs were also consulted with regard to Provincial interest in the District’s growth outlook. Some key considerations from the consultations include:

62

HEMSON

There are concerns that some larger residential projects in the development pipeline may quickly consume the remaining capacity of existing municipal water and sewer services, should they come to market. The cost of maintaining aging existing infrastructure, such as existing pipes and roads, while also expanding municipal services may be prohibitive.

There are adequate residential lands within the District, however many properties are faced with geological constraints that make development difficult or expensive.

Much of the District land supply has historically been developed on private services, but there is now a push to develop in a more sustainable and fiscally responsible manner. It is acknowledged that most growth will be directed to areas with full municipal servicing, as directed by the PPS.

With a perceived diminishing supply of waterfront lots, there is a recognition that a significant share of waterfront development activity will primarily involve redevelopment of existing parcels. The environmental impact of development on local bodies of water is also a key concern.

The aging population, out-migration of youth and loss of local industries are thought to affect long-term growth and economic prospects in the District. There is some difficulty in attracting year-round employment opportunities.

There is great opportunity identified for growth in the recreation and retirement- oriented markets. A challenge will be to attract and retain young, skilled workers and high quality employers.

There is a growing demand and need for a range of housing options, including attainable and affordable housing particularly in areas with good access to amenities and jobs. A number of tools are available to encourage this, including enabling new forms of housing, partnerships with organizations that provide housing support, and encouraging the development of new secondary suite units via new District policy, municipal incentives and community improvement plans.

From a Provincial standpoint, the key concern is that growth be planned for in a sustainable manner and directed to existing serviced Urban Centres, consistent with the direction of the PPS.

Taking the range of policy, market, supply and local priorities into consideration, the District-wide forecasts of population, housing and employment has been distributed among Muskoka’s local municipalities, as presented in the following section.

63

HEMSON

V LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF FORECAST GROWTH The results of the local municipal growth allocations for population, housing and employment from a 2016 to 2046 horizon are presented below. There are no major shifts anticipated in the overall distribution of population, housing and employment in the District.

A. AREA MUNICIPAL GROWTH ALLOCATIONS

The District-wide reference forecasts have been distributed to Muskoka’s six Area Municipalities based on a combination of planning policy, historic growth, market demand, consultation with Area Municipal staff, and the capacity to accommodate growth from land supply and municipal 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.

Table 33 indicates the shares of household growth that provided that basis for the distribution of year-round population and housing growth.

Table 33: Municipal Shares of District-wide Year-round Household Forecast Growth, 2016-2046

Municipality Share of District-wide

Year-Round Housing Growth

Bracebridge 24.5%

Gravenhurst 21.9%

Huntsville 40.6%

Georgian Bay 6.2%

Lake of Bays 3.0%

Muskoka Lakes 3.9%

District Total 100.0%

Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures have been rounded and may not total to 100%.

64

HEMSON

As shown, the highest share of the District-wide forecast growth has been allocated to the Town of Huntsville, reflecting its historic role as a population and service centre within the District and significant supply of upcoming units in draft approved and recently completed plans of subdivision and condominium description. The Towns of Bracebridge and Gravenhurst similarly have a higher share of forecast year-round housing growth, consistent with observed and anticipated trends.

The balance of forecast growth is distributed between Muskoka’s Townships, considering local land capacities and growth trends. The allocated shares of growth generally follow the prevailing historical shares with one exception, that being the Township of Georgian Bay. Georgian Bay currently has 685 units in draft approved plans of subdivision and condominium description, most of which are located in Port Severn. While it is not certain that all of these units will be developed in the near term, if even half are developed in the next 30 years, it would mark a dramatic increase in the Township’s rate of growth.

B. YEAR-ROUND OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLD FORECAST

Table 34 indicates the forecast of year-round occupied housing units by local municipality from 2016 to 2046.

Table 34: Year-round Housing Unit Forecast by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Year-round Occupied Housing Units 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 6,740 7,480 8,160 8,630 1,890 24.5% 0.83%

Gravenhurst 5,010 5,660 6,270 6,700 1,690 21.9% 0.97%

Huntsville 8,110 9,330 10,460 11,240 3,130 40.6% 1.09%

Georgian Bay 1,200 1,390 1,560 1,680 480 6.2% 1.13%

Lake of Bays 1,470 1,560 1,640 1,690 220 2.9% 0.47%

Muskoka Lakes 2,910 3,030 3,140 3,210 300 3.9% 0.33%

District Total 25,440 28,450 31,230 33,140 7,700 100.0% 0.89%


65

HEMSON

As shown, all Muskoka municipalities will continue to add year-round households over the forecast horizon, with the highest levels of absolute growth anticipated within the Town of Huntsville, Bracebridge and Gravenhurst.

Georgian Bay is also expected to experience a relatively high rate growth, led primarily by the development of draft approved plans of subdivision and condominium description located in Port Severn. The forecast assumes just over 60% of the draft approved units will be built and occupied by year-round residents by 2046, which would represent a significant increase relative to the municipality’s existing supply. Should these developments be successful in the near-term, the growth potential for Georgian Bay could potentially be much higher.

The forecast mix of year-round occupied households is provided in Table 35.

Table 35: Forecast Household Growth by Unit Type, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Year-round Housing Growth by Type Share by Type Single/ Semi

Rows Apts Total Single/ Semi

Rows Apts

Bracebridge 1,410 190 290 1,890 75% 10% 15%

Gravenhurst 1,100 190 400 1,690 65% 11% 24%

Huntsville 2,100 380 650 3,130 67% 12% 21%

Georgian Bay 380 90 10 480 79% 18% 3%

Lake of Bays 210 0 10 220 94% 0% 6%

Muskoka Lakes 270 20 10 300 90% 6% 5%

District Total 5,470 870 1,370 7,710 71% 11% 18%

Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures have been rounded and may not add to total or 100%.

Unit mix in the Towns is expected to continue to shift towards a mix of higher-density built forms, including rowhouses and apartments, though single detached households are still anticipated to comprise the bulk of new units. As mentioned in previous sections, this shift towards higher density dwelling types is expected to be driven by aging demographics and the demand for more affordable housing options.

Growth in the Townships is expected to be primarily attributed to single detached houses, with some rowhouse developments in Georgian Bay, as per existing draft approvals.

66

HEMSON

The housing mix for new year-round units in the designated Urban Centres is anticipated to move towards the targets set under OPA 47, though it is unclear if communities that are more rural and recreational in nature, such as Lake of Bays and Muskoka Lakes, will be able to attract market demand for higher density housing choices.

Each municipality is anticipated to add a small number of secondary suites and duplex units over time. For the purposes of this forecast, these units are counted as apartments, but may be introduced to any existing built forms, excluding apartments, not located on the Waterfront designation, as permitted in the Muskoka Official Plan.

C. YEAR-ROUND POPULATION FORECAST

Table 36 indicates the year-round population forecast by Area Municipality.

Table 36: Forecast Year-Round Population by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Year-round Population 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net

Change District Share

CAGR

Bracebridge 16,000 17,400 18,700 19,600 3,600 24.0% 0.68%

Gravenhurst 12,300 13,600 14,800 15,700 3,400 22.7% 0.82%

Huntsville 19,800 22,200 24,600 26,200 6,400 42.7% 0.94%

Georgian Bay 2,700 3,100 3,400 3,600 900 6.0% 0.96%

Lake of Bays 3,200 3,300 3,400 3,500 300 2.0% 0.30%

Muskoka Lakes 6,600 6,700 6,800 7,000 400 2.7% 0.20%

District Total 60,600 66,200 71,700 75,600 15,000 100.0% 0.74%

Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures have been rounded and may not add to total. Note: These figures exclude net Census undercoverage, estimated at 4.99%.

Rates of year-round population growth are anticipated to lag growth of year-round occupied households across the District of Muskoka, an outcome of the aging population and resulting decline in average household size.

Following anticipated development patterns, year-round population growth is expected to be concentrated in the Urban Centres primarily in the Towns, with the largest concentrations of absolute growth in population anticipated for Huntsville,

67

HEMSON

Bracebridge, and Gravenhurst. The Township of Georgian Bay is also expected to see somewhat higher rates of population growth based on near term development activity in Port Severn, as indicated by the number of units in draft approved plans of subdivision and condominium description.

D. SEASONAL UNIT AND POPULATION FORECAST

The District’s location near the GGH together with its unique natural amenities and character, contribute to its attractiveness for residential development oriented to seasonal and recreational units. A key consideration in planning for future housing growth and development in the District is the role that these seasonal and recreational units play as a component of total housing stock. Seasonal 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.

Looking ahead, it is likely that the growth in seasonal 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 is likely to be a combination of low-density residential units on private services along the waterfront and a mix of densities in urban resort-related communities.

While there was some concern raised during consultation with Area Municipal staff that there is a diminished supply of waterfront lots in the District, the vacant land analysis indicates there are over 2,600 vacant waterfront lots with road access and sufficient size to accommodate a seasonal cottage development. These lots are spread fairly evenly across the Area Municipalities, and should be enough to accommodate the forecast amount of seasonal growth when considered alongside plans for units in urban resort-related communities across the District.

The allocation of seasonal housing growth as a share of overall District growth is detailed in Table 37 on the following page.

68

HEMSON

Table 37: Municipal Shares of District-wide Seasonal Household Forecast Growth, 2016-2046

Municipality Share of District-wide

Seasonal Housing Growth

Bracebridge 6.4%

Gravenhurst 12.2%

Huntsville 25.9%

Georgian Bay 20.7%

Lake of Bays 12.8%

Muskoka Lakes 21.3%

District Total 100.0%


The anticipated distribution of growth is notably higher in Huntsville than historic patterns of seasonal growth would suggest. However, recent and planned expansions to Deerhurst and other resort-style developments in Hidden Valley, such as Waterfront at Grandview and Treetops Condominiums, include a significant component of resort-related residential units, which are anticipated to be primarily seasonal in nature, in additional to standard commercial units. Should these units be developed at or near the number being proposed in their draft approved plans of subdivision and condominium description, they would likely absorb a sizeable share of Muskoka’s overall seasonal unit growth12. Beyond these projects, seasonal growth shares have been allocated in line with historic averages, respective of the remaining supply of vacant waterfront lots. The forecast for seasonally occupied units is detailed in Table 38 on the following page.

12 The contested resort-related residential developments in the resort community of Minett were excluded from the seasonal growth forecast and unit allocation. Should these projects be permitted, they too may result in a shift to seasonal growth share. Based on the data available, it is unclear the impact these developments would have on other resort-style developments, like the ones located in Huntsville’s Hidden Valley, or on the rest of the District’s demand for seasonal housing.

69

HEMSON

Table 38: Seasonal Housing Unit Forecast by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Seasonally Occupied Housing Units 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 2,130 2,250 2,300 2,340 210 6.4% 0.31%

Gravenhurst 3,370 3,550 3,670 3,770 400 12.2% 0.37%

Huntsville 2,170 2,500 2,810 3,020 850 25.9% 1.11%

Georgian Bay 4,550 4,830 5,040 5,230 680 20.7% 0.47%

Lake of Bays 3,450 3,630 3,750 3,870 420 12.8% 0.38%

Muskoka Lakes 7,220 7,520 7,730 7,920 700 21.3% 0.31%

District Total 22,880 24,270 25,290 26,160 3,280 100.0% 0.45%


Huntsville is expected to see a rise in its historical seasonal growth rate, and to experience the highest amount of overall seasonal unit growth, primarily on account of plans for the Deerhurst Resort Village and other large seasonally-oriented plans of subdivision in Hidden Valley.

The projected rate of seasonal growth is relatively even between the other Area Municipalities, with the Townships of Georgian Bay and Muskoka Lakes anticipated to experience high amounts of overall growth, as informed by historical trends and recent building permit activity.

Over the course of the forecast period, the proportion of seasonal and recreational units to year-round units will fluctuate as dwellings are cyclically converted to year-round residences and back to seasonal units over time. This may vary from period to period, most notably at the local level. However, it is not anticipated that conversions will result in a significant overall shift in any one direction (i.e. a net zero impact).

Based on the above, Table 39 on the following page indicates the estimated growth in seasonal population from a 2016 to a 2046 horizon.

70

HEMSON

Table 39: Forecast Seasonal Population by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Seasonal Population 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net

Change District Share

CAGR

Bracebridge 7,300 7,800 8,000 8,100 800 6.8% 0.35%

Gravenhurst 11,500 12,100 12,600 12,900 1,400 12.0% 0.38%

Huntsville 7,100 8,300 9,400 10,200 3,100 26.5% 1.21%

Georgian Bay 16,700 17,700 18,500 19,200 2,500 21.4% 0.47%

Lake of Bays 11,900 12,500 13,000 13,400 1,500 12.8% 0.40%

Muskoka Lakes 27,300 28,400 29,200 29,800 2,500 21.4% 0.29%

District Total 81,900 86,900 90,500 93,600 11,700 100.0% 0.45%


As noted in the description of the forecast methodology, it is currently not assumed that the average PPU for seasonal dwelling units will change over the forecast period. There is currently insufficient data to determine if the recent drop in seasonal occupancy patterns estimated by the 2017 Second Home Study is part of a longer-term trend. As the most reliable source for estimating seasonal population, it is important that the next iteration of the Second Home Study continue to track how Muskoka’s seasonal residents are using their seasonal homes in order to ensure the District is able to properly plan for this part of its population.

E. EMPLOYMENT FORECAST

Table 40 on the following page indicates forecast total employment by Area Municipality from 2016 to a 2046 horizon.

71

HEMSON

Table 40: Forecast Total Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Total Employment 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 8,770 9,150 9,550 10,000 1,230 23.1% 0.44%

Gravenhurst 4,580 4,890 5,210 5,590 1,010 18.9% 0.67%

Huntsville 10,230 10,890 11,530 12,290 2,060 38.6% 0.61%

Georgian Bay 980 1,080 1,170 1,280 300 5.6% 0.89%

Lake of Bays 970 1,040 1,100 1,170 200 3.8% 0.63%

Muskoka Lakes 3,210 3,370 3,550 3,750 540 10.1% 0.52%

District Total 28,750 30,420 32,100 34,080 5,330 100.0% 0.57%


A moderate outlook for employment growth is split relatively evenly among Muskoka municipalities with the largest concentration of growth in Huntsville and the other Towns, reflecting their role as the primary economic centres in the District, along with the availability of municipal services and other employment supportive infrastructure.

It is important to note that while the share of total growth has been allocated in line with population growth, historical trends and available land supply, the resulting rates of compound annual growth for Area Municipalities are less than that for population growth, most notably for the Town of Huntsville. This is primarily a result of the large existing employment base in the Town, which results in a lower CAGR despite having nearly 40% of the District’s share of total employment growth over the forecast period. The opposite effect is true for the Townships, as even a small increase results in a higher CAGR by nature of their more modest employment bases.

The employment forecast is divided into three land-use based categories:

Commercial / 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 but is also influenced by tourism. Jobs under this category typically locate in land zoned for commercial and institutional uses, but may also be located in resorts and mixed-use areas.

72

HEMSON

Employment-land employment refers to traditional industrial-type employment primarily accommodated in low-rise industrial buildings in business parks and employment areas. Given the spatial and operational needs of these types of jobs, they are almost exclusively located in lands zoned for industrial employment uses.

Other / Rural-based employment refers to jobs scattered throughout the rural area, primarily related to agricultural, recreational and primary industries.

A general summary of employment types by land use categories is included in Table 41 below.

Table 41: Example Employment Sectors by Land Use Category

Commercial / Population-related Employment

Employment-land Employment

Other / Rural-based Employment

Retail Manufacturing Agriculture

Restaurants Wholesalers Mining Accommodation and

hospitality Transportation and

logistics Forestry

Healthcare Construction Recreation

Education Waste Management

Finance & real estate Production & Repair

As noted as part of the land supply analysis in the previous section, not all employment may result in a need for land. Jobs with no fixed place exist in all three of the identified land-use categories, including construction workers, in-home care-givers, and tourism-related guides. The forecast employment numbers include jobs with a regular place of work, along with those that work at home and those with no fixed place of work.

Employment amongst the three land-use categories is distributed based on historic trends, respective of the economic activity that typically takes place in each Area Municipality and their current supply of vacant industrial and commercial land. Table 42 on the following page details the how employment growth is allocated to the three land use categories in each of the Area Municipalities.

Table 43, Table 44 and Table 45 on the following two pages provide the resulting total employment growth by each respective land use category.

73

HEMSON

Table 42: Share of Total Employment Growth by Land Use Category by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Commercial /

Population-related Employment

Employment-land Employment

Other / Rural-based Employment

Bracebridge 70.7% 17.1% 13.0% Gravenhurst 79.2% 7.9% 11.9% Huntsville 77.7% 11.7% 10.2% Georgian Bay 70.0% 10.0% 20.0% Lake of Bays 45.0% 15.0% 40.0% Muskoka Lakes 51.9% 18.5% 29.6% District Average 72.2% 13.1% 14.6%

Table 43: Forecast Commercial / Population-related Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Comm./Population-related Employment 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 5,170 5,440 5,710 6,040 870 22.6% 0.52%

Gravenhurst 2,760 3,010 3,250 3,560 800 20.8% 0.85%

Huntsville 6,040 6,560 7,050 7,640 1,600 41.6% 0.79%

Georgian Bay 530 600 660 740 210 5.5% 1.12%

Lake of Bays 450 480 500 540 90 2.3% 0.61%

Muskoka Lakes 1,360 1,450 1,530 1,640 280 7.3% 0.63%

District Total 16,310 17,530 18,700 20,160 3,850 100.0% 0.71%

Table 44: Forecast Employment-land Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Employment-land Employment 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 2,590 2,650 2,730 2,800 210 30.0% 0.26%

Gravenhurst 1,240 1,270 1,300 1,320 80 11.4% 0.21%

Huntsville 2,860 2,930 3,020 3,100 240 34.3% 0.27%

Georgian Bay 260 270 280 290 30 4.3% 0.36%

Lake of Bays 250 260 270 280 30 4.3% 0.38%

Muskoka Lakes 1,030 1,060 1,100 1,130 100 14.3% 0.31%

District Total 8,220 8,430 8,690 8,920 700 100.0% 0.27%

Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures have been rounded and many not add to total.

74

HEMSON

Table 45: Forecast Other / Rural-based Employment by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Other/Rural-based Employment 2016-2046

2016 2026 2036 2046 Net


CAGR

Bracebridge 1,010 1,060 1,110 1,170 160 20.5% 0.49%

Gravenhurst 580 620 660 700 120 15.4% 0.63%

Huntsville 1,330 1,400 1,460 1,540 210 26.9% 0.49%

Georgian Bay 200 220 240 260 60 7.7% 0.88%

Lake of Bays 270 300 320 350 80 10.3% 0.87%

Muskoka Lakes 820 870 920 980 160 20.5% 0.60%

District Total 4,220 4,460 4,710 5,000 780 100.0% 0.57%


In a general sense, the trend of overall employment growth shifting towards more Commercial / Population-related Employment is expected to continue, with growth driven primarily by local population growth in each Area Municipality, along with providing some services to Muskoka’s seasonal population. The Towns are anticipated to experience higher levels of growth in this category as their year-round populations continue to grow, though it will also drive growth in the Townships. Population growth in Georgian Bay is also expected to drive demand for population-serving businesses based on anticipated higher than average growth in Port Severn.

Though it is not expected to add a significant amount of year-round population, Muskoka Lakes is likely to add commercial services reflecting its large seasonal population, in line with historic rates of growth in this category.

With the shift away from traditional industrial uses appearing to have stabilized in the most recent Census period, it is expected that employment-land related jobs will grow gradually over the forecast period. This growth is likely to be distributed in line with historic patterns, with most occurring in the Towns and in Muskoka Lakes, due to in part to the existing supply of vacant industrial land in these municipalities. It is important to note that with the shift away from manufacturing towards construction and other sectors that are less likely to have a fixed place of work, job growth in this category may be less reliant on industrial zoned vacant land than historically had been the case.

The allocation of Other / Rural-based Employment sector job growth is not expected to deviate from historic trends, which have remained relatively stable over the past few Census periods.

75

HEMSON

F. PRELIMINARY FORECAST FOR GROWTH IN URBAN CENTRES

An aspect of the forecast allocations was a review of the long-term sub-municipal growth targets between serviced and unserviced areas in each Area Municipality. These targets were introduced in the 2009 GS update and subsequently confirmed as part of the 2013 GS update before being formally introduced to the Muskoka Official Plan as part OPA 47. The growth targets call for Area Municipalities to direct a share of all new residential dwelling units occupied on a year-round basis to their designated Urban Centres over a 30-year period.

As noted in the previous 2013 GS, reviewing recent development trends on this basis is somewhat difficult due to geographical issues with the Census at the sub-municipal level. While Statistics Canada does track growth for ‘population centres’ in Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Huntsville, it changed the defined geographies for these areas between the 2011 Census and the 2016 Census, preventing a direct comparison of growth between periods. A review of growth changes at the Census Dissemination Area (DA) level were unreliable due to the boundaries of the DAs not aligning with the defined boundaries of Urban Centres in the Muskoka Official Plan.

Recent building permit data from the Area Municipalities and from MPAC also presents challenges, as the permits from both these sources appear to omit or undercount the number of dwelling units in higher density projects.

Working within these constraints, the forecast sub-municipal growth allocations build upon the findings and assumptions in the 2013 GS in order to estimate the amount of growth that would need to occur within the Urban Centres of each municipality so as to meet their respective growth targets by 2036. For this purpose, the forecast gradually adjusts the historic pattern of development in each Area Municipality, reflecting recent building permits and current plans of subdivision and condominium description, to identify the number of new year-round units that would be required in the serviced urban area. Similar assumptions are made regarding the forecast allocation of seasonal dwelling units. This trend shift assumption is based on the premise that the District and Area Municipalities will implement policy changes over time to focus year-round growth towards the Urban Centres, while also limiting the number of significant development opportunities in unserviced and rural areas.

76

HEMSON

Table 46 details the cumulative forecast allocation of unit growth for each Area Municipality for the twenty-year planning horizon between 2016 and 2036, and for the thirty-year forecast horizon between 2016 and 2046. More detailed tables of forecast unit growth at the sub-municipal level are provided in Appendix B.

Table 46: Forecast Sub-Municipal Growth Allocation by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Development

Location1

New Units (2016-36) New Units (2016-46) Year-round

Seasonal Total

(all uses) Year-round

Seasonal Total

(all uses)

Bracebridge

Serviced 1,130 20 1,150 1,540 20 1,560

Unserviced 290 155 445 345 200 545

Muni. Total 1,420 175 1,595 1,885 220 2,105

Gravenhurst

Serviced 1,015 195 1,210 1,385 260 1,645

Unserviced 250 100 350 300 140 440

Muni. Total 1,265 195 1,460 1,685 400 2,085

Huntsville

Serviced 1,415 445 1,860 2,070 615 2,685

Unserviced 935 190 1,125 1,060 240 1,300

Muni. Total 2,350 635 2,985 3,130 855 3,985

Georgian Bay

Serviced 295 160 455 390 260 650

Unserviced 65 330 395 90 425 515

Muni. Total 360 490 850 480 685 1,165

Lake of Bays

Serviced 35 30 65 50 40 90

Unserviced 140 270 410 180 380 560

Muni. Total 175 300 475 230 420 650

Muskoka Lakes

Serviced 70 75 145 120 105 225

Unserviced 155 435 590 180 595 775

Muni. Total 225 510 735 300 700 1,000

District Total

Serviced 3,960 925 4,885 5,555 1,300 6,855

Unserviced 1,835 1,480 3,315 2,155 1,980 4,135

District Total 5,795 2,405 8,200 7,710 3,280 10,990

Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures have been rounded and may not add to total. Note: 1 Serviced locations refer to the defined Urban Centres in each Area Municipality.

Unserviced areas include communities and rural areas outside of designated Urban Centres.

77

HEMSON

As a note, it is important to recognize that there is always less certainty associated with small area forecasts. This is because they are not only dependent on general conditions of supply and demand, but also individual decisions of land owners and purchasers that are inherently unpredictable. Given the small number of units being considered in the sub-area forecasts, one large or particularly dense plan of subdivision or condominium description could shift the outlook considerably over the course of the forecast period. While the forecast assumes the Area Municipalities will implement land use policies that will influence and guide year-round growth, things will invariably change over the next thirty years, necessitating regular reviews of the growth targets and the effectiveness of policy in achieving them. The targets from the 2013 GS will be reviewed as part of the next phase of the 2019 GS.

Based on the observed development patterns in the residential land capacity analysis, each Area Municipality should have more than enough land within their designated Urban Centres to accommodate the amount of growth necessary to meet their policy targets for the 2036 planning horizon and beyond through the 2046 forecast horizon. A comparison of the sub-municipal growth forecast against units in plans of subdivision and condominium description, along with the estimated capacity of the vacant residential land supply in each Area Municipality is provided in Table 47 on the following page.

78

HEMSON

Table 47: Forecast Sub-Municipal Unit Demand and Supply Comparison by Area Municipality, District of Muskoka, 2016-2046

Municipality Development

Location 1

Forecast New

Units by 2046

Avg. Units

Per Year

Subdivision & Condo

Units2

Vacant Land Est. Unit Capacity 3

Est. Years of Supply

Low High Low High

Bracebridge

Serviced 1,560 52 775 3,670 6,120 85 133

Unserviced 545 18 0 1,345 1,680 74 92

Muni. Total 2,105 70 775 5,015 7,800 83 122

Gravenhurst

Serviced 1,645 55 1,060 1,645 2,740 49 69

Unserviced 440 15 0 1,320 2,145 90 146

Muni. Total 2,085 70 1,060 2,965 4,885 58 86

Huntsville

Serviced 2,685 90 2,810 2,475 4,125 59 77

Unserviced 1,300 43 85 2,310 5,075 55 119

Muni. Total 3,985 133 2,900 4,785 9,200 58 91

Georgian Bay

Serviced 650 22 675 205 1,020 41 78

Unserviced 515 17 10 1,940 2,275 114 133

Muni. Total 1,165 39 685 2,145 3,295 73 102

Lake of Bays

Serviced 90 3 0 70 255 23 85

Unserviced 560 19 120 1,405 1,590 82 92

Muni. Total 650 22 120 1,475 1,845 74 91

Muskoka Lakes

Serviced 225 8 0 245 1,235 33 165

Unserviced 775 26 45 1,720 2,095 68 83

Muni. Total 1,000 33 45 1,965 3,330 60 101

District Total

Serviced 6,855 229 5,320 8,310 15,495 60 91

Unserviced 4,135 138 260 10,040 14,860 75 110

District Total 10,990 366 5,580 18,350 30,355 65 98


Note: 1 Serviced locations refer to the defined Urban Centres in each Area Municipality. Unserviced areas include communities and rural areas outside of designated Urban Centres. 2 Includes all recently registered, draft approved and complete applications in plans of subdivision and condominium description. Numbers for complete applications have been adjusted based on Area Municipal input. 3 Estimates of vacant residential land unit capacity based on lowest and highest densities for each Area Municipality as identified in Table 29 and Table 30. Unserviced unit capacity includes residential unit capacity for vacant lands in communities, plus waterfront and rural lots, as listed in Table 26.

79

HEMSON

At a broad level, the District as a whole has between 60 and 91 years worth of vacant residential land capacity located within the designated boundaries of its Urban Centres, after accounting for units in draft approved and recently completed plans of subdivision and condominium description.

Even in a scenario assuming the Area Municipalities develop their remaining vacant residential land supplies at the lower end of potential development densities, there should be more than enough land to accommodate forecast growth within their serviced Urban Centres through to a twenty-year planning horizon to 2036. The same holds true for most Area Municipalities through to the thirty-year forecast horizon in 2046

Should the Township of Lake of Bays develop its remaining vacant residential land supply within the serviced boundaries of Baysville at the very low density assumption of four units per net ha, the Township may face a shortage of serviced land over the thirty-year forecast horizon. However, even a modest increase to average development densities would ensure more than enough land within their urban boundary to accommodate their forecast growth while also meeting their growth targets per OPA 43.

80

HEMSON

VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report has presented the results of the updated District of Muskoka Growth Strategy for updated forecasts of population, housing and employment growth from a 2016 to 2046 horizon. Forecast growth has been allocated to Area Municipalities in Muskoka to provide a basis for planning at the District and Area Municipal levels. The land supply inventory has also been reviewed and updated with estimates made on the capacity to accommodate residential and employment growth. Key Conclusions: District of Muskoka 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 growth is once again positive in the most recent Census period as Muskoka continues to slowly recover from the economic shifts that occurred during the global recession. The growth that has been occurring over recent Census periods has been unevenly distributed among Muskoka’s local municipalities and continues to reinforce the general pattern of population, housing and employment concentrations in the District.

While recent population and housing growth in Muskoka has been close to what was anticipated under the 2013 GMS forecasts, current indicators suggest the District will likely grow at a slower rate than what was forecast from 2016 onwards. At the same time, those forecasts somewhat underestimated 2016 employment in the District. The current update takes into account more recently available information and considers the District’s future growth outlook in the context of recent and emerging economic and demographic trends.

Three District-wide forecast scenarios were prepared – a low, reference and high outlook based on varied assumptions about future demographic and economic conditions in Muskoka. The reference scenario represents the most likely outcome for Muskoka based on our current understanding of economic and demographic trends affecting the pattern and pace of growth and development in the District. This scenario forms the basis for local allocations of growth presented in this report.

An outlook on seasonal units has also been prepared. Seasonal units have represented a significant portion of the housing stock in many municipalities in

81

HEMSON

Muskoka, accounting for over 47% of the District’s total housing stock in 2017. Planning for growth in the District must take into account the effects of these units which do not add to the year-round population base but do require municipal services and contribute to the local economy.

Under the reference forecast scenario, District of Muskoka is anticipated to add 15,800 year-round residents between 2016 and the 2046 forecast horizon, growing to a total year-round population of 75,600 in 2046. Housing growth is anticipated to out-pace population owing to the aging population trend and resulting decline in household size. The District is forecast to add 7,700 year-round occupied households between 2016 and 2046. Another 3,300 seasonal units are anticipated over the planning horizon, adding approximately 11,700 seasonal residents for a total seasonal population of 93,600. Employment in Muskoka is forecast to grow moderately over the forecast horizon to a 2046 total employment of 34,000.

The reference forecast growth has been allocated to Area Municipalities in Muskoka 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 District are anticipated, with the exception of the Town of Huntsville forecast to experience a higher than historic seasonal unit growth related to the expansion of a number of local resort communities.

A review and update to the District land supply inventory was undertaken, resulting in the identification of nearly 1,100 gross ha of vacant residential lands across Muskoka’s Urban Centres, more than sufficient to meet demand over a twenty-year planning horizon, or the thirty-year forecast horizon. Including units in draft approved plans of subdivision and condominium approval, the District is estimated to have between 60 and 91 years of vacant residential land capacity within its serviced Urban Centres. The District also features more than enough industrial and commercial land to accommodate forecast employment growth well past the thirty-year forecast horizon.

Recommendations:

At this time, there is no identified need to expand settlement area boundaries in order to accommodate the growth outlook for housing or employment at a District or local municipal level. The District should continue to monitor and maintain an updated land budget going forward in order to ensure an adequate supply over the long-term.

82

HEMSON

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. The preliminary forecast assessment indicates that there is enough vacant residential land available within each of the Urban Centres for Muskoka’s Area Municipalities to achieve the year-round growth allocation targets put forward in OPA 47 by the 2036 planning horizon, respective of the new, more modest growth outlook for the District as presented in this report.

Update the forecast tables in Section D of the adopted Muskoka Official Plan to incorporate the updated outlook for year-round and seasonal population and units and employment growth, reflecting the more modest growth expectations for the District and its Area Municipalities.

The forecasts which form the basis of the GS 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 District and Area Municipalities in Muskoka 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.

Next Steps:

Hemson Consulting will conduct additional analysis and prepare a recommended strategy for additional matters of importance to the Muskoka Official Plan and overall planning for a variety of District programs. This will include a review of preferred locations and targets for growth, and analysis of intensification opportunities, and commentary on the fiscal sustainability of growth.

83

HEMSON

APPENDIX A AGE STRUCTURE BY FORECAST PERIOD

84

HEMSON

Historic and Forecast Age Structure by 5-year Cohort as Share of Total Population, District of Muskoka, 2016, 2026, 2036, 2046

Historic Forecast Year 2016 2026 2036 2046 2016-46

Age Group Population Share Population Share Population Share Population Share Change

0 - 4 2,320 3.8% 2,710 4.1% 2,850 4.0% 2,840 3.8% -0.1%

5 - 9 2,610 4.3% 2,670 4.0% 2,920 4.1% 2,930 3.9% -0.4%

10 - 14 2,710 4.5% 2,590 3.9% 3,010 4.2% 3,170 4.2% -0.3%

15 - 19 3,060 5.0% 3,080 4.7% 3,190 4.4% 3,460 4.6% -0.5%

20 - 24 2,930 4.8% 2,820 4.3% 2,740 3.8% 3,130 4.1% -0.7%

25 - 29 2,900 4.8% 3,060 4.6% 3,070 4.3% 3,200 4.2% -0.6%

30 - 34 3,060 5.0% 3,350 5.1% 3,280 4.6% 3,230 4.3% -0.8%

35 - 39 2,880 4.8% 3,450 5.2% 3,670 5.1% 3,710 4.9% 0.2%

40 - 44 3,070 5.1% 3,430 5.2% 3,770 5.3% 3,700 4.9% -0.2%

45 - 49 3,650 6.0% 3,600 5.4% 4,220 5.9% 4,510 6.0% -0.1%

50 - 54 5,100 8.4% 4,380 6.6% 4,880 6.8% 5,290 7.0% -1.4%

55 - 59 5,510 9.1% 4,730 7.1% 4,830 6.7% 5,480 7.2% -1.8%

60 - 64 5,420 8.9% 5,980 9.0% 5,420 7.6% 5,970 7.9% -1.0%

65 - 69 4,920 8.1% 5,780 8.7% 5,200 7.2% 5,290 7.0% -1.1%

70 - 74 3,820 6.3% 4,900 7.4% 5,520 7.7% 5,020 6.6% 0.3%

75 - 79 2,700 4.5% 4,110 6.2% 4,990 7.0% 4,510 6.0% 1.5%

80 - 84 2,000 3.3% 2,810 4.2% 3,800 5.3% 4,310 5.7% 2.4%

85 - 89 1,280 2.1% 1,580 2.4% 2,590 3.6% 3,200 4.2% 2.1%

90+ 590 1.0% 1,180 1.8% 1,790 2.5% 2,637 3.5% 2.5%

Total Population 60,630 100.0% 66,210 100.0% 71,730 100.0% 75,600 100.0%


85

HEMSON

APPENDIX B DETAILED SUB-MUNICIPAL FORECAST ALLOCATIONS

86

HEMSON

Town of Bracebridge – Detailed Forecast Allocations, 2016-2046

Town of Bracebridge

Forecast Unit Growth (cumulative)

Single/ Semi

Rows Apts Total Year-Round

Seasonal Total

Urban Growth Centre (Bracebridge)

2016-21 195 35 50 275 10 285

2016-26 390 65 105 560 15 575

2016-31 600 100 160 860 15 875

2016-36 785 140 210 1,130 20 1,150

2016-41 930 165 250 1,345 20 1,365

2016-46 1,060 190 290 1,540 20 1,560

Unserviced Communities & Rural Area

2016-21 95 0 0 100 85 185

2016-26 175 0 0 175 110 285

2016-31 240 0 0 240 135 375

2016-36 285 0 0 290 155 445

2016-41 320 0 0 320 180 500

2016-46 350 0 0 345 200 545

Municipal Total

2016-21 290 35 50 375 95 470

2016-26 565 65 105 735 125 860

2016-31 840 100 160 1,100 150 1,250

2016-36 1,070 140 210 1,420 175 1,595

2016-41 1,250 165 250 1,665 200 1,865

2016-46 1,410 190 290 1,885 220 2,105

Source: Hemson Consulting. Figures have been rounded.

87

HEMSON

Town of Gravenhurst – Detailed Forecast Allocations, 2016-2046

Town of Gravenhurst


Single/ Semi


Seasonal Total

Urban Growth Centre (Gravenhurst)

2016-21 130 35 70 230 65 295

2016-26 270 65 145 480 115 595

2016-31 440 100 225 765 155 920

2016-36 585 140 285 1,015 195 1,210

2016-41 700 165 340 1,205 230 1,435

2016-46 795 190 400 1,385 260 1,645


2016-21 100 0 0 100 40 140

2016-26 175 0 0 175 60 235

2016-31 220 0 0 215 85 300

2016-36 255 0 0 250 100 350

2016-41 275 0 0 280 120 400

2016-46 305 0 0 300 140 440

Municipal Total

2016-21 230 35 70 330 105 435

2016-26 445 65 145 655 175 830

2016-31 660 100 225 980 240 1,220

2016-36 840 140 285 1,265 295 1,560

2016-41 975 165 340 1,485 350 1,835

2016-46 1,100 190 400 1,685 400 2,085


88

HEMSON

Town of Huntsville – Detailed Forecast Allocations, 2016-2046

Town of Huntsville


Single/ Semi


Seasonal Total

Urban Growth Centre (Huntsville, Hidden Valley)

2016-21 110 65 110 285 70 355

2016-26 260 130 235 625 200 825

2016-31 465 200 360 1,025 345 1,370

2016-36 675 275 465 1,415 445 1,860

2016-41 860 330 555 1,745 530 2,275

2016-46 1,045 375 650 2,070 615 2,685


2016-21 330 0 0 330 50 380

2016-26 595 0 0 595 130 725

2016-31 800 0 0 800 170 970

2016-36 935 0 0 935 190 1,125

2016-41 1,010 0 0 1,015 215 1,230

2016-46 1,060 0 0 1,060 240 1,300

Municipal Total

2016-21 440 65 110 615 120 735

2016-26 855 130 235 1,220 330 1,550

2016-31 1,265 200 360 1,825 515 2,340

2016-36 1,610 275 465 2,350 635 2,985

2016-41 1,870 330 555 2,760 745 3,505

2016-46 2,105 375 650 3,130 855 3,985


89

HEMSON

Township of Georgian Bay – Detailed Forecast Allocations, 2016-2046

Township of Georgian Bay


Single/ Semi


Seasonal Total

Urban Growth Centre (Port Severn, MacTier)

2016-21 55 15 0 75 30 105

2016-26 110 30 5 145 55 200

2016-31 170 45 10 225 110 335

2016-36 220 65 10 295 160 455

2016-41 260 75 10 345 210 555

2016-46 290 85 15 390 260 650


2016-21 25 0 0 20 130 150

2016-26 45 0 0 45 225 270

2016-31 55 0 0 55 275 330

2016-36 70 0 0 65 330 395

2016-41 75 0 0 80 380 460

2016-46 90 0 0 90 425 515

Municipal Total

2016-21 80 15 0 95 160 255

2016-26 155 30 5 190 280 470

2016-31 225 45 10 280 385 665

2016-36 290 65 10 360 490 850

2016-41 335 75 10 425 590 1,015

2016-46 380 85 15 480 685 1,165


90

HEMSON

Township of Lake of Bays – Detailed Forecast Allocations, 2016-2046

Township of Lake of Bays


Single/ Semi


Seasonal Total

Urban Growth Centre (Baysville)

2016-21 5 0 0 5 10 15

2016-26 10 0 5 15 20 35

2016-31 20 0 10 25 25 50

2016-36 25 0 10 35 30 65

2016-41 30 0 10 45 35 80

2016-46 35 0 15 50 40 90


2016-21 40 0 0 40 110 150

2016-26 75 0 0 75 160 235

2016-31 110 0 0 110 205 315

2016-36 140 0 0 140 270 410

2016-41 160 0 0 160 325 485

2016-46 180 0 0 180 380 560

Municipal Total

2016-21 45 0 0 45 120 165

2016-26 85 0 5 90 180 270

2016-31 130 0 10 135 230 365

2016-36 165 0 10 175 300 475

2016-41 190 0 10 205 360 565

2016-46 215 0 15 230 420 650


91

HEMSON

Township of Muskoka Lakes – Detailed Forecast Allocations, 2016-2046

Township of Muskoka Lakes


Single/ Semi


Seasonal Total

Urban Growth Centre (Bala, Port Carling)

2016-21 5 5 0 10 30 40

2016-26 15 5 5 25 45 70

2016-31 30 10 10 50 60 110

2016-36 50 15 10 70 75 145

2016-41 65 15 10 95 90 185

2016-46 85 15 15 120 105 225


2016-21 50 0 0 50 170 220

2016-26 95 0 0 95 260 355

2016-31 130 0 0 130 340 470

2016-36 155 0 0 155 435 590

2016-41 175 0 0 170 515 685

2016-46 185 0 0 180 595 775

Municipal Total

2016-21 55 5 0 60 200 260

2016-26 110 5 5 120 305 425

2016-31 160 10 10 180 400 580

2016-36 205 15 10 225 510 735

2016-41 240 15 10 265 605 870

2016-46 270 15 15 300 700 1,000


92

HEMSON

District of Muskoka – Detailed Forecast Allocations, 2016-2046

District of Muskoka


Single/ Semi


Seasonal Total

Urban Growth Centre (All)

2016-21 500 155 230 880 215 1,095

2016-26 1,055 295 500 1,850 450 2,300

2016-31 1,725 455 775 2,950 710 3,660

2016-36 2,340 635 990 3,960 925 4,885

2016-41 2,845 750 1,175 4,780 1,115 5,895

2016-46 3,310 855 1,385 5,555 1,300 6,855


2016-21 640 0 0 640 585 1,225

2016-26 1,160 0 0 1,160 945 2,105

2016-31 1,555 0 0 1,550 1,210 2,760

2016-36 1,840 0 0 1,835 1,480 3,315

2016-41 2,015 0 0 2,025 1,735 3,760

2016-46 2,170 0 0 2,155 1,980 4,135

District Total

2016-21 1,140 155 230 1,520 800 2,320

2016-26 2,215 295 500 3,010 1,395 4,405

2016-31 3,280 455 775 4,500 1,920 6,420

2016-36 4,180 635 990 5,795 2,405 8,200

2016-41 4,860 750 1,175 6,805 2,850 9,655

2016-46 5,480 855 1,385 7,710 3,280 10,990


FORECAST & GROWTH ALLOCATION REPORT FINAL...Forecast Year-Round Population by Area Municipality,...

Documents

Transcript of FORECAST & GROWTH ALLOCATION REPORT FINAL...Forecast Year-Round Population by Area Municipality,...