Comments in regards to…

Comments in regards to Proposed Updates to the Regulation of Development for the protection of people and property from natural hazards in Ontario

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990. The Council for the Township of Perth South is in agreement with the current government’s position that changes need to be made to the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990. We applaud the government for taking steps to make rules for development in hazardous areas more consistent to support faster, more predictable, and less costly approvals.

Delays in Conservation Authority Review of Development Applications.

We would like to see more timely responses from conservation authorities on development applications. Currently, significant delays are being experienced with applications submitted resulting in unnecessary and costly delays. Both municipal staff and development applicants frequently experience a high level of frustration as a result of these delays.

The Township of Perth South would like to see legislated timelines for planning application reviews and comments by conservation authorities. This is even more important in 2023, as municipalities will be penalized financially due to application delays, including the conservation authority delays, which are out of their control.

Consistency in legislation – Regulations of development, interference with wetlands, and alterations to shorelines and watercourses.

We support the development of a single provincial regulation to replace the 36 individual regulations under the Conservations Authorities Act to provide consistent requirements across all conservation authorities.

Included in the current individual regulations are Flood Event Standards which are used to determine the maximum susceptibility to flooding of lands or areas within the conservation authority’s watershed. The Township of Perth South has lands located in two conservation authority watersheds, each with a significantly different Flood Event Standard. The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) has a flood event standard equal to the observed 1937 flood, or the 1 in a 250-year storm event. The Ausable-Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA) has a flood event equal to Hurricane Hazel Flood Event, or the 1 in a 100-year storm event. As a result, property owners with lands that the watershed border crosses have different flood standards on different parts of their lands.

The use of the 250-year storm, rather than the 100-year storm is the source of much frustration for both municipal staff and development applicants and has resulted in significant costs being added to development projects. And further, the use of the 250-year storm event is rather confusing when municipal roads, bridges, and drainage systems (municipal drains) are not built to this same standard, rather the 100-year flood or a lesser flooding standard is used.

The Township of Perth South would like to see the “Observed 1937 Flood Event” replaced with the “Hurricane Hazel Flood Event” in all conservation authorities in order to create consistent requirements across all conservation authorities.

Clarity, Consistency, and Transparency with Flood Hazzard/Wetland Mapping

The Township of Perth South and development applicants are constantly frustrated by the lack of clarity and transparency of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority’s flood mapping. While approved mapping is included in the Perth County Official Plan, a different mapping is available on the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority’s website, but most frustrating, the flood mapping used for development applications is different and not shared publicly. This lack of transparency is unacceptable. The requirement that any individual in the public who would like to determine flooding/hazard/wetland limitations on a property must submit a development application to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority for review is unacceptable and needs to change. The public, including developers, should have free access to mapping in advance of purchasing a property for development.

A further mapping frustration is that new flooding hazards and wetlands keep appearing on internal conservation authority mapping without consultation with the municipality or landowners. Municipal staff and development applicants only become aware of this new or expanded hazard following the submission of a development application. Not only does this newly expanded hazard mapping lack transparency, but it is contrary to the conservation authority policies which indicate that mapping changes will be discussed publicly and comments will be received before being enforced.

Upon inquiry with Upper Thames River Conservation Authority staff regarding our mapping frustrations and lack of consultation before enforcement, we have been advised by their staff that advances in mapping technologies are being used to create updated mapping and that this new mapping will be released in 2023 through a public consultation process, but it is provincial legislation that requires them to enforce new mapping without consultation. The issue for Perth South staff and Development Applicants is that the new mapping is already in force, prior to public consultation, making the entire future consultation process disingenuous.

The Township of Perth South would like to see predictable comments from conservation authorities through increased transparency in conservation authority mapping with the elimination of the legislative conflict that requires conservation authority staff to enforce new mapping before public consultation, municipal discussion, and incorporation into the Official Plans and local Zoning by-laws has occurred.

Development in a Municipal Drain Watershed

Development within a Municipal Drain Watershed is the cause of great frustration and confusion. Municipal Drains are administered by OMAFRA and legislated under the Municipal Drainage Act. Municipal drains are engineered to provide drainage to a watershed area.

We struggle to understand why the municipal drains are considered a watercourse and subject to flooding standards not required under the Drainage Act. For example, a municipal drain is built for less than a 100-year storm, yet the conservation authority will refuse to reference the engineer's report for the construction of the drain and apply a 250-year storm event.

The legislative conflicts regarding municipal drainage and conservation authority approvals need to be reviewed and resolved.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed changes.