My (re-revised) comments on …

My (re-revised) comments on ERO number 013-5018:

Please review my whole submission in its entirety, as it directly underlines some of the major issues with Conservation Authorities Act, the deviation from/ and interpretations of the original 1946 mandates, and unwarranted expansion beyond the original mandates and statutory obligations.

There is an ever growing concern that our Conservation Authorities (CAs) are expanding beyond their Conservation Authorities Act’s mandates and statutory obligations, and are unfairly treating citizens within their respective jurisdictions. The Conservation Authorities Act needs to be clear, concise, consistent and fair so that it can be interpreted for fair and unbiased application. The CAs have been empowered to interpret the Conservation Authorities Act as they deem fit, and usually to the detriment of the private land owners. Below I have provided details, (in its entirety is relevant to this ERO), on my open permit application (my permit application, -the further development of an under-developed "infill" lot in a 1956 Registered Plan of Subdivision). I have spent ~$50,000, and still with no success, on a proposed low risk development, one of the last building lots in a Subdivision of Record, that is being blocked by a biased employee who is using incorrectly his power under the Conservation Authority Act to wrongly block me from further developing my under-developed building lot.

I wish to thank you for considering and reviewing my considerations and concerns for the amendment of the Conservation Authorities Act. The 36 CAs need to be accountable for a fair unbiased application of the Conservation Authority Act’s original core mandates. As stated above the Conservation Authority Act should be clear, concise, and not be able to be manipulated /interpreted so that it can be used in a prejudicial, unfair treatment of private landowners /citizens.

My open permit application is with one of the 36 Conservation Authorities and is being blocked due to the biased CA Manager and his powers under the Conservation Authorities Act. This unfair, unjust, prejudiced treatment of my application by this CA Manager has been ongoing for more than 10 years, and still continues even after spending more than $50,000 and a six day hearing where I was granted acceptable Lake setbacks. How does our Conservation Authorities Act allow for this to happen.

At my most recent meeting with my local CA in Jan, 2018, I got some inkling as to why this CA Manager has been treating me thus. At this Jan, 2018 meeting, this CA Manager, in the presence of two CA co-workers, accused me, or my agent, of having called him a Nazi some 10 years ago. He then demanded an apology for this alleged name-calling incident. The name-calling never happened, although his holding this grudge explains why he has not been impartial, and why he has been treating me unfairly and with prejudice for the past decade. This is a slight against my character, and a behaviour that should not be acceptable for a person in his position that is charged with impartiality. It is his duty to judge, without bias, the merits of permit applications made to a CA.

As to the alleged Nazi name calling incident that caused the CA Manager’s outburst, the minutes of the relevant 10 year old public meeting reveal that he is incorrect. I have struggled for 10 years to understand why my application has not been treated with the same dispatch and transparency as that of neighbours within my own subdivision and those of neighbouring subdivisions. I now firmly believe that the CA Manager’s prejudice has cost me $50,000 for a six day hearing that should never have been required not to mention my time and energy spent in trying, without success, to find a reasonable compromise that would allow me to develop my property/building lot.

In the course of my dealings with this CA, I was forced to ask a Provincial body to intercede in my application to the municipality (and the local CA) re: the development of my property. The Provincial body ruling cites… "Staff of public agencies with regulatory authority must be held to a high standard of openness and fairness, both in practice and perception. They found that this did not occur in this case...." The treatment of my application, and the application of the CA Policies, has been neither transparent nor fair. In spite of the judgement, I find I am still being continually treated unfairly and, in light of the January 2018 outburst, it seems likely that this treatment arises from this alleged name-calling incident.

This CA’s prejudiced employee has treated me unfairly and has misused his power to rule on my application with bias. He not only refuses to grant me any permit but also refuses to give any clear explanation as to the reasons that underpin the decision that I may not build a cottage in Lakeshore Area 2. As mentioned, this has been on-going for >10 years. The CA’s Manuals and Policy documents had all indicate that development in Lakeshore Area 2 is allowed, as long as there is no encroachment into Lakeshore Area 1. I am also in possession of a 2006 letter from this CA, where this CA Manager, indicates development is allowed up to the Lake stable top of slope, which is Lakeshore Area 2 – a clear contradiction of his current position that development of any kind is not permissible on my property.

Further support of revamping of the regulation is found in the November 2018 letter, that a Kingston MPP presented to the Minister of the MECP, around concerns of questionable Conservation Authority (CA) practices and their misinterpretation of the CA’s statutory authority (this is a public letter that I can forward).

p.s. You will find below supporting details (all are relevant to the ERO, and support a
required change back to the CAs original core mandates, statutory obligations, &
governance:
• My January 11th, 2018 meeting notes;
• A brief chronological history of my dealings with my local CA
• Property Description
• Available Documentation

January 2018 – Meeting Notes:
Attendees: General Manager / Manager / Regulations Officer
-this CA Manager attended this meeting without warning. He should not have been at this meeting as the previous GM, had agreed to remove him from my file 5 years earlier, after the ruling of the 6 day hearing. My meeting had been arranged with the Regulation Officer who did not inform me that this CA Manager would be in attendance. He took control of, and dominated, the meeting from the outset.

-During this meeting, I inadvertently called my lot's main 9’x11’ sleeping bunkie a “Recreational Residence”. This CA Manager took exception to this, threatening that if this 9’x11’ building was a “Recreational Residence”, then I would be in violation and further that he has the power to send this application to the CA’s board for an immediate ruling. I apologized for my misuse of the "Residential" terminology, at which point he was became enraged, ranting that if I was giving apologies, he was owed an apology for what he INCORRECTLY believes happened 10 years ago, the alleged Nazi name-calling incident.

-The only agent working as my agent 10 years ago was a survey professional from the area.
I am offended by the untrue accusation, but it clearly explains why this CA manager has been treating my application, and continues to do so, with prejudice.

-During this meeting the CA Manager makes it clear that any development on my infill lot is currently frozen due to the HOLD placed on the granted setbacks for my re-zoning , and that, in light of this hold, he does not have to approve my application. This HOLD was put in place to allow me time to get a permit from the local CA. Ironically, had I not gone thru with the 6 day ### hearing, my lot would now be zoned, in due course by changes in the municipality zoning, to allow a recreational residence (Municipality of ##### -Zoning Map F1).

-The CA Manager makes it clear that the CA’s correspondence from a former regulations officer with whom I was corresponding on my file/application, were sanctioned or directed by this CA Manager himself stating …”that I have not responded to his most recent correspondence.” This would explain why the former regulations officer would never discuss my file on the phone. How is this allowed to happen considering I was told that this specific CA Manager was no longer over-seeing my application?

-The CA Manager further stated that his former regulations officer did not agree to accept the review of the 3 individual components of my application separately, and that this former regulations officer did not give me an acceptable ravine setback. This is also untrue – the former regulations officer and I had spent considerable hours working on the survey and cross sections with the local professional survey firm to determine an acceptable ravine setback, and setbacks that we had reached agreement on (document available upon request).

In chronological order, some additional incidences of this on-going unfair treatment
(re: my local CAs permit & application process):
1. March 2006. A letter from the now CA Manager, to the Municipality of ##### dated March ##, 2006, wherein he states …“that the proposed building envelope is located outside the 3:1 Stable Slope Allowance and as such is located within Shoreline Area 2. According to the Shoreline Management Plan, a new structure can be developed in Lakeshore Area 2…”; and further on in the letter, that “…the suitability of property access is to be sought from the municipality’s emergency services”. (March, 2006 letter available upon request)

=>The 27.5m Lake setback that this CA Manager is imposing on me is not reasonable (it pushes development to outside Lakeshore are 2), nor is it consistent with other infill lots in the area, and considering this CA can consider development up to 3:1 stable top of Lake slope for such lots, my permit should have been allowed.

-As per the CA’s Manager’s recommendation to seek input from emergency services, I did seek input as to the acceptability of my lot access from the Municipality of ##### emergency services and have their approvals with signatures (approvals available upon request).

-Further, the findings after the 6 day hearing, states on page 17 of ruling …. “No public agency expressed any concerns with respect to emergency vehicle access to the subject property. It is the Board’s determination that the risk is acceptable, and in this specific situation, is to be preferred to the theoretical calculations set out in the technical guides.”

=>This employee, the now CA Manager, continues to reject the determinations of these bodies despite his request that I seek said input.

2. In 2008, the only agent that was involved with the re-zoning application was from a local reputable survey firm here in Ontario. Even he, after many survey additions, cross section iterations, and changes to the development proposal, could not understand why I was being stone walled by this CA’s current Manager

3. In May 2009 I took a local builder, who has successfully negotiated with this CA and has significant experience building on lakefront properties, to meet with the CA Manager. After the meeting the builder asked me…”What have you done to make this guy so angry?” I had no answer for him -- at the time, I had no idea that this CA Manager was harboring ill will toward me over the alleged name-calling incident.

4. In June 2011 the Municipality of ##### Planning Committee voted to accept my re-zoning application. In July 2011, on the actual day of the Municipality of ##### Council vote, a letter from the local CA was sent, received, and read to Council threatening to take the matter to a Provincial body for ruling if the Council voted in favour of my re-zoning application. After a discussion, where the Mayor discussed the cost of such a hearing, Council voted to ignore the recommendation of it’s own Planning Committees vote to accept my re-zoning application and, instead, repealed the previous Planning vote, then later denied my application forcing me to take the matter to be heard and ruled upon by a Provincial body.

5. Prior to the 2012 six day hearing, that I now truly believe only happened because of this CA Manager’s prejudice against me, born of the alleged Nazi name-calling incident, I hired a lawyer experienced with the CAs. One of the first things he asked was why I had "bore hole and geotechnical reports" done on my property in the absence of an application to the CA. I informed him that the CA Manager, instructed that if I wanted to move forward to a permit application, that it was required. My lawyer said that it was not mandatory.

-Adding insult to the injury, this now CA Manager did not accept the "geotechnical report" I provided from a geotechnical engineer, whom this CA had engaged in the past, and demanded that I arrange, at my expense, a peer-review of said "geotechnical report". In light of the April 2012 hearing/ruling/findings (see point 6 below), the then General Manager of this CA (now retired), removed this CA Manager from working with me on any future application I may make to the CA. And going forward I was to work with a now former regulations officer.

=>Judging from our January 2018 meeting, this CA Manager had remained in control of my file/application with correspondence sent to me under the guise of the former regulations officer.

6. In April 2012, after a six day hearing, it was found that this CA’s Manager had been treating me unfairly. On page 16 of the 2012 ruling (see ruling) - "They found, from the CA’s own Manager’s testimony and that of the two engineers, that the process followed was not a peer-review as that term is commonly known, but was instead a process to advocate a Conservation Authority staff position on the matter. Public documents in the local CA files were withheld from the appellant under the guise of privacy rights." Additionally, they state that "Staff of public agencies with regulatory authority must be held to a high standard of openness and fairness, both in practice and perception. The found that this did not occur in this case...."

-The ruling, after the 6 day hearing, stipulated that the lot be granted the requested re-zoning and that a HOLD be placed on it so that the CA and I could negotiate the terms of a permit.

=>At the January 2018 meeting, despite the re-zoning, this CA Manager says that the HOLD designation means that the lot is still not zoned for a recreational residence, and in light of this, he does not have to approve my CA permit application.

-Fast forward to 2015, changes in the current Municipality zoning laws mean that my lot would now have been zoned to allow a recreational residence (see Municipality of ##### Zoning Map F1) without the need of a costly 6 day hearing. Zones NE3 and LR1 both allow for single detached dwellings.

7. In August 2012, my immediate neighbour north was granted a 13.3 meter setback from top-of-bank Lake. Other neighbours in our Plan of Subdivision, and neighbouring subdivisions, have been granted similar favourable such setbacks from the top-of-bank. I had requested an 11m Lake setback, which is not unreasonable, and totally acceptable by policy. Whereas I am being informed that the setback on my lot must be no less than 27.5m, double the others in my neighbourhood. I could have worked with a 13.3m setback like my immediate neighbour.

8. My application to this CA was formally made in July, 2013.

9. April – June 2014, the former regulations officer indicates that he will work with me on the three components of my application individually. He indicates in writing, after working with myself and a local professional survey firm, that a ravine setback of 14m from stable slope line is acceptable to this CA.

=>At the January 2018 meeting, this CA Manager denies this and says he will not look at the 3 components of my application separately, that they must be dealt with in aggregate.

10. The purpose of the meeting in January 2018, was to clarify where the application stood and to discuss the definition of “infill”, which according this CA’s policies applies to my lot and therefore to my application to the CA. The CA Manager seems to select and interpret the definition that serves his purposes alone; refusing to acknowledge that the lot meets the CA’s own "infill" definitions.

=>This CA Manager will not recognize my lot as an “infill” lot in a 1956 Registered Plan of Subdivision, this despite the fact that the definition of “infill” appears in the this CA’s Policies and Procedures Manual in several different places as well as in the Shoreline Management Plan.
(Shoreline Management Plan; and the CA’s Policies and Procedures Manual are available upon request.)

Lot/Property Description: (under-developed “infill” lot)
(Lake waterfront in the local CA’s Lakeshore Area 1 and 2)
-Lot ## (Plan ###, a 1956 Registered Plan of Subdivision)
-Lot Size: 32.2m x 101.4m x 33.5m x 87.5m
-The building lot has: a 9’x11’ sleeping bunkie/cabin; a 4’x8’ electrical and water supply building; an 8’x8’ metal tool shed; a class 1 septic system; hydro service; municipal water service; telephone/ internet service; and natural gas at the property line

Reference Documents: (these and others are available upon request)
-Shoreline Management Plan
-CA’s Policies and Procedures Manual
-1956 Original Plan of Subdivision (Registered Plan ###)
-March, 2006 – CA Manager’s Letter to the Municipality re: top of bank build acceptance
-April, 2012 – Provincial Body Ruling (Findings on Page 16)
-March, 2014 –Site Plan: Lot ##, Registered Plan No. ###
-June, 2014 –Former Regulations Officer’s Acceptance of Ravine Setbacks
-April 2015 –Municipality of ##### new Zoning Map 1Fs