Bill 23: We Should Be Concerned About Collateral Damage

Jeff Green | Jan 18, 2023

Land use planning is bureaucratic, tedious, complicated, and boring.

It is also a big deal for anyone who wants to build something, or wants to prevent or change the plan of someone else who wants to build something.

Everyone, with the possible exception of former South Frontenac Councillor Ross Sutherland, seems to be satisfied with how the planning system has been working in rural Ontario.

For a generation, municipal officials and politicians have been saying that they want to be able to provide clear direction to developers who arrive at their doorstep with plans to create new housing, or new enterprise, on rural properties or properties within designated hamlets.

The dream is that there is a single list of provisions that need to be met, that the requirements to meet those provisions are straightforward, and once those provisions are satisfied the development can proceed.

For the kinds of developments that typically come to local councils, such as plans of subdivision or land use condominium, the process will not necessarily be quick or easy, but it will be definable and there will be no surprises.

This goal has been elusive, and the Province, in its zeal to create housing, has been pushing for a faster process. Some see this as a cover for its intention to support development of all the forms of development, regardless of the community or environmental impact

. Speed is only one element to a good process. Clarity is another, and ensuring that development is done in an environmentally sustainable manner and that the legitimate interests of neighbouring property owners, and the community at large, are not hindered is another element.

Over the past year, and particularly with Bill 23, the province has gutted measures to protect environmental or community interests.

Instead of fixing the problems, they have eliminated all controls and thrown all municipal planning and zoning processes into disarray.

There is a proposal in front of North Frontenac Council for a zoning bylaw amendment to permit a family to build 7 cabins on a 35 acre property on Palmerston Lake. It came before a meeting last week (see the North Frontenac Council report for details).

I know little about the project, just what I read in the report, certainly not enough to have formed an opinion about whether it should be approved or not.

But as an example of the potential unintended consequences of Bill 23, it is a useful case to look at.

This is not a development proposal in the classic sense, and Bill 23 is not necessarily relevant since all that is being requested is a zoning bylaw amendment and not a plan of subdivision.

But it is a case where one party wants to create something unusual, and the neighbours are not happy about it. I see no evidence of bad faith on either side. The family wants to make the best use of their property for their own purposes, without ruining the lake or the landscape, and the neighbours, who have been good stewards of the land for many decades, are still concerned.

The council, and the county planner working on the project, are charged with ensuring that the neighbours' concerns are addressed, and if possible that the family will be able to do what they want to do, or less than they really want to do, but more than they are allowed to do under the current zoning.

Because the property is on a lake, a trout sensitive lake no less, and because once the environment is impacted by a property development it is very hard to repair the damage, it is a classic case where the information, expertise and perspective of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority would help create a good outcome for everyone.

This could mean the proposal is accepted in some form, or that it is rejected entirely.

Bill 23 is not intended to deal with this sort of proposal, but its provisions say that Conservation Authorities cannot provide comments to municipalities regarding 'natural heritage issues'. If the Conservation Authority cannot provide their expertise to this matter, North Frontenac Council will be making a decision based on instinct, pressure from one side or another, or for some other reason entirely, but not because they are fully informed about the implications of a yes or a no answer.

It is a bit unclear if the Conservation Authority can intervene in this case, as Bill 23 is so new and has not been tested in court, but the case illustrates its potential implications.

In communities whose greatest asset is our lakes, streams and forests, this is not acceptable.