Bill 229; Amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act were passed in November 2020. We do not yet have the Regulations, so a lot is missing in terms of definitions and detail.
Process Changes
There are new appeal rights both in terms of conditions to the permit, refusal to issue a permit and for no decision within 120 days.
Appeals go to LPAT or to a Ministers Review.
The applicant cannot be refused, or conditions to the permit imposed that the applicant does not agree with unless the applicant is given an opportunity to be heard.
It would seem Municipal Zoning Orders will contemplate compensation for ecological impact. Development under a MZO cannot proceed until an agreement is executed.
In summary these are important changes to the Conservation Act. They create a realistic appeal process and checks and balances in the system.
Mandate Changes
Bill 229 is a paring back of the CA’s mandate to source water protection and natural hazards. To be defined by regulation but will probably be focused on flooding and erosion.
CA’s cannot appeal land use planning decisions, or act as a party to LPAT unless the issue relates to natural hazards.
CA’s cannot charge a fee unless approved by the Minister, expropriate, or enter onto private land without permission.
The CA’s may continue to provide Municipal programs and services that the Authority agrees to provide on behalf of Municipalities under a memorandum of understanding.
Why these changes?
Jurisdictional crowding, layer upon layer; MNR, CA’s, Municipal, County planning policies
CA jurisdictional creep
Currently little clarity in the process; 36 CA’s have their own fees, own guidelines, and their own service standards.
Hopefully, Bill 229 will result in more consistency and focus on core mandate for Conservation Authorities.
We await the Regulations.