1. Clarify roles and reduce…

1. Clarify roles and reduce duplication of effort in review of aggregate applications
Under Section 28 (11) of the Conservation Authorities Act, areas licensed for aggregate extraction under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) are exempt from CA permitting activities. However, CAs are afforded an opportunity during the application review and consultation process to review and provide comments directly, or through their participating municipalities, to the MNRF on applications submitted under the ARA.
As with other applications submitted pursuant to the Planning Act, CAs may review Official Plan amendments, zoning bylaw amendments and other applications for proposed new or expanded aggregate operations submitted pursuant to the Planning Act, and comment in an advisory capacity to municipalities making decisions on Planning Act applications.
As the mandate of CAs has grown over the years beyond flood control and management of hazard lands, there is an increasing overlap in the issues that provincial agencies and CAs raise in the review of aggregate applications. For example, CA comments now encompass a number of areas which are already managed by MNRF and MECP, such as species at risk, significant wildlife habitat, cumulative impact assessments and well water issues.
As a result of the expanded involvement of conservation authorities, we have experienced an increase in cost and delays associated with obtaining approvals for new aggregate sites. We believe that redefining the role of CAs in the land use approval process will help to reduce the regulatory burden, and encourage investment in Ontario, while maintaining a high focus on protecting the environment and surrounding receptors.
Recommendation
The ERO proposal would establish a transition period for CAs and municipalities to enter into agreements for the delivery of non-mandatory programs and services. To reduce overlap and duplication of effort, we recommend that municipal program and service agreements clarify the CA role in the review of aggregate applications under the Planning Act and the Aggregate Resources Act, and restrict CA comments to matters covered under Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2014). Municipal agreements or memorandums should also recognize the Section 28(11) exemption for activities approved under the ARA.
As drafted, the sections of the legislation dealing with municipal programs and services1 are ambiguous, and we are concerned that this could potentially confound the province’s objective of streamlining and focusing conservation authorities’ role in municipal plan review.
2. Aggregate application review fees
We have noted that there is a vast range of fees that different CAs charge for the review of aggregate applications. In the areas where SMC operates, these fees range from less than $5,000 to over $75,000 depending on the CA. The technical review of aggregate applications is already undertaken by staff at the MNRF and the MECP. In many cases, we are also paying fees for municipal peer review of the same technical reports. We are concerned with the duplication of effort, as the same subject matter (e.g., impact on species at risk) is often handled by several different reviewers. The fees charged for the CA review of applications does not always reflect the amount of work completed, and as such the fees charged tend to be arbitrary.
There needs to be greater accountability and adherence to timelines to complete reviews and increased transparency related to work done by the CA.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Act include provisions for a fair and accountable fee structure. The complexity of aggregate applications vary, and fee structures should be reflect the corresponding level of effort required. A provincially established review fee, or at least a cap on the amount that can be charged for this service, would provide greater certainty for business.