Frontenac Politicians Seek To Change Provinces Mind Over Conservation Authority Role

Jeff Green | May 24, 2023

Much of the conversation at the May meeting of Frontenac County Council (May 16) centred around the implications of some of the changes to provincial rules around land use planning that are part of the government's target of 1.5 million new housing units, in the province, by 2031.

As part of his monthly briefing, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Kelly Pender talked about attempts that Frontenac County politicians and planning staff are making to address changes that came from Ontario Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, which was approved late last year, and is now into the implementation phase.

One of the provisions in the act, that is of concern to planning departments in rural municipalities across the province, is one that prohibits Conservation Authorities from commenting on the implications of land use proposals on ‘Natural Heritage Features’, which include water quality in lakes and streams, shoreline erosion, and habitat preservation.

The townships, who are the approval authority for planning applications, still need to consider these issues, but especially in the case of smaller municipalities like those in Frontenac County, they do not have the resources within their own staff to complete the necessary studies. They have been left scrambling to find consultants who are able to complete them in a timely and cost-effective manner.

As CAO Pender pointed out, the extra costs will end up being paid by the applicants, people who are seeking to build new homes in Frontenac County, the very group that the province is seeking to encourage in the More Homes Built Faster Act.

“In Frontenac County, we do about 195 planning applications per year that require comment by the Conservation Authorities for 'Natural Heritage Features'. South Frontenac County put together a motion around this that has been approved by all of the township and was also approved by the Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus last week, and is on our agenda today,” Pender said.

“The point is that we don't have the staff to respond to those issues, the information and reports rest with the Conservation Authorities, and it's going to be a significant burden on applicants having to pay for a consultant to do the work. North Frontenac has gone out and sought some quotes from different firms to do the natural heritage consultations. So where it used to cost us about $500 per application, it's going to be about $2,000 per application, and that's if they don't have to do a site visit. It’s going to have a significant impact on applicants because they will be paying the freight.”

Pender added that Frontenac County politicians raised the matter when they met with MPP John Jordan in April.

“We expressed the position to him that what works in Toronto doesn't necessarily work in rural Ontario, that we are different. Frontenac has four different Conservation Authorities, and although they've removed the ability of Conservation Authorities to comment, but haven't adjusted either the timelines or the requirement to comment on natural heritage features.”

Bill 97 and the new Provincial Planning Statement

A little later in the meeting, Dmitry Kurylovich, a Community Planner with Frontenac County, addressed council about some very recent changes coming down the pipe from the province.

He talked first about the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), which is being renamed the “Provincial Planning Statement” (PPS). As he described it, the PPS is a background document that all municipal Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws must conform to. Last month,a proposed new PPS was released by the province, who are seeking comments from stakeholders, including municipalities, before adopting it sometime later this year.

Kurylovich said that most of the changes to the PPS are designed for urban planning and development issues, and are not of great concern to Frontenac County, but among those that are the changes in rules around lot creation in lands that are designated as “Prime Agricultural Areas”, is the most significant.

“These changes will have implications in South Frontenac, and Frontenac Islands, as they are the only two townships within the county that contain prime agricultural areas,” he said.

Prime Ag lands are lands that have soils ranked Class 1, 2, or 3 on the Canada Lands Inventory.

Under the current PPS, it is not permitted to create new residential lots on prime agricultural lands, but the new PPS allows for the creation of up to 3 new lots if certain conditions are met.

Aside from a concern over effectively removing parcels, albeit small ones, of prime land from agricultural use, Kurylovich said that some of the terms in the new PPS are not well enough defined for local planners to understand its implications in their own jurisdictions.

“For example,” he said, “the new PPS talks about properties that are “adjacent to lands under agricultural use' which seemed clear at first, but when we looked further, we realise that we do not know exactly what they mean, either by “adjacent” or “agriculture”. We will be asking for clarification in order to understand the implications of those provisions in the act.”

The second concern raised was over restrictions to residential use of lands defined as “employment lands” a land designation that is included in the new South Frontenac Official Plan, which is slated to be adopted this coming fall.

“Again here, the provisions in the new PPS are intended for an urban industrial location, which is not what would apply in a place like South Frontenac,” Kurylovich said.

One other aspect of the new PPS that may not have major implications for Frontenac County in particular, but does reveal a lot about the focus of the entire provincial housing initiative, is a new definition of ‘affordable housing.’

This was noted by North Frontenac Mayor Gerry Lichty.

“It seems like the new definition of 'affordable' is just that housing is less expensive than other houses in a neighborhood. So, where there are a bunch of million-dollar homes, a house worth $800,000 is now considered 'affordable housing'” said Lichty.

Kurylovich agreed with Lichty's interpretation.

“PPS 2023 removes references to ‘affordable housing’ and ‘housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Instead, it appears that the PPS will now be more in-line with other regulations that speak to market value of a unit rather than income of the occupant,” he said.

Another change in PPS 2023, which may be relevant to the issued raised earlier in the meeting by CAO Pender, is that ‘Natural Heritage Features’ which are defined in the current PPS, are absent from PPS 2023. All that remains is a paragraph saying that the section regarding Natural Heritage Features is “under review”.

In his report on another new provincial initiative, Bill 97, the Helping Home Buyers, Protecting Tenants Ac, Kurylovich said the new Bill is similarly more oriented to urban than rural development issues, but it has some implications in Frontenac County as well.

One, that the planning department suggests the county should support, is the return of site plan control as a planning tool for developments with under 10 dwelling units. These controls were eliminated when Bill 23 came in last fall, but appear to be returning under Bill 97.

On the other hand, the new bill says that changes to the timelines for approvals, which have been a challenge for planning departments, will be implemented very soon, on July 1st of this year.

Bill 97 gives the Ministry of Housing and Long Term Care added leeway to override local planning processes with “Ministerial Zoning Orders”.

Expansion of ATV use on K&P trail.

At the April meeting, Marc Moeys of the Verona ATV Club asked council to consider expanding the motorised use of the K&P trail to the south, from the Verona trailhead where it starts now to the Harrowsmith Trailhead.

A notice of motion to that effect came forward to the May meeting, with a staff recommendation that the motion be referred to the Planning and Economic Development Committee.

“The committee should hear from both sides,” said Ron Vandewal about the matter. “We heard the pro side from Marc Moeys, but the committee should provide an opportunity for comment by the other side as well.”

“We only expected the committee to look at developing a process for public comment and for how Council should proceed to deal with this. We did not see them making a recommendation about whether it should be adopted” said Richard Allen, Manager for Economic Development.”

Council did not see it that way, however, and it appears that the Planning and Economic Development Advisory Committee, which meets in early June, will be tasked with seeking public opinion on the proposal.

The date for that meeting is not identified on the frontenaccounty.ca meeting calendar at this time.