If CAs are corporations,…

If CAs are corporations, they should follow ISO standards for operating procedures, contract review, performance, quality and metrics. Following ISO standards will help service quality, response and transparency.

CAs should be fully funded by the government. They should not be not-for profit organizations. They should not have incentive or motive for financial preservation or sustainability of itself and the organization. This goal is clearly stated in annual reports and at council meetings for budget approvals.

CAs should not be used for “non-core” programs. This can result in special interest policy influence with no legislative or legal accountability.

Local citizens and property owners should be able to review and vote on the local CA's policies.

CA officers should treat citizens and their clients with respect. They should not threaten, insult, humiliate or speak of other cases.

Property owners should not be in fear of retaliation from the CA if they are challenged, in disagreement or make public their concerns. Property owners should not have to rely on favored relations to get permits or work approvals.

Appeals to the judgement of permits or violations should be made to a third party public entity not the CA executives or council members.

Local property taxes should be reduced in areas where CAs have authority. Especially in hazard zones. Their authority and restrictions over property repair, build, development activity can reduce property value and increase risk of expropriation.

CAs should not be able to affect property values or sales transactions by disclosing home owner files or imply threats of pending or potential work orders. This has driven property values of homes down and has had adverse effect on purchase offers.

CAs should not have authority for issuing or approving development permits and also be land owners. There is an inherent conflict of interest. They should be responsible for managing their land and the city or local government responsible for permit issues.

CAs mandate should be to come to the aid of local property owners in need of shore line protection, erosionordisasterrelief. Remove conflicts of interests of CAs owning property and having expropriation and permit authority. If CAs will not approve permits for repair or build, they should offer to purchase the property from the home owner, not indirectly expropriate them or let turn to blight.

CAs should not imply their policy is law. Their policy should be clearly separated from law and property owners should have the ability to clearly see and understand. (eg, no foundation repair work allowed, no roof repairs allowed, no changes to structure, repair value over 50% triggers new build, cannot expand over 50% of existing footprint, ect).

CAs should not be able to require property owners to sign special conditions and amendments to their permit based on their policy or interest, in order for the citizen to get the legal right of the permit.

CAs should not have indemnity for work they direct a land owner to do.

CAs should not be able to send letters with statements that imply their policies are law or imply expropriation. The law and regulations should be clear and unambiguous.

Need clarity and no confusion or room for interpretation in the regulations. Too much grey area left to CAs discretion.

If permits cannot be approved in a reasonable and timely manner, the CA should not hold back the work. They should allow the applicant to proceed and rely on the local building authorities.

We have flooding and shore damage but are reluctant to do anything to repair it because of the CA. We are in fear they will fine us or put conditions on repair that we cannot feasibility or financially bear. There seems to be a culture of the CA to “say no always” and put the property owners on trial to defend their asset. So we must let the property along shoreline turn to blight and crumble and pollute the waterways. We believe this is counter to the CAs core mandates. The process has become dysfunctional. It would be so much better if the CA offered to help people to protect and construct shore line works.

In regards to development and repair of existing property, CAs should focus on the location of the property relative to the waterways. They should not over reach authority in regards to the amount of work, cost, materials used, structure or foundations. CAs should not have authority to classify repairs as new builds. This should be the responsibility of qualified engineers or city inspectors.

If CAs are to issue building permits, they need to staff with inspectors and or engineers that can represent and make judgement against Ontario building codes. They should not make judgement on construction or repairs if not qualified.

CAs should enforce or hold property owners accountable only to the requirements and information on the permit application. They should not be able to leverage the issuing of a permit on further conditions and stipulations based on policy or special interest.

Because of policy ambiguity, property owners are in fear of leveraged negotiations or retaliation.

CAs should not have citizens, home owners or property owners sign waivers or special conditions beyond their mandate as a condition to allow a permit. Property owners should not have to sign away their property rights or give special conditions to CAs. Their power should be inclusive within the law or legislation. Citizens should not have to sign off on their property rights or give the CA overreaching conditions and indemnity in order to give you a permit.

In regards to permit applications, citizens should be able to submit requests for variances to their local city council as is done with any other permit application. Rejections or deviations from the regulations or policies can be made public and justified.

CAs should be consistent in their policies with permits and property owners. If they think they can get away with it, the CA applies conditions on some that have not been applied on others. Without professional support from engineers or contractors, the property owner does not know what has been accepted practice or allowable in other cases. Professionals with experience or legal background are needed to call out the CA for inconsistency in applying policy. This is not feasible for many owners.

City approval of the construction drawings should be final. The CA should not be able to go back to home owner and order changes, issue violations or fines.

The process flow for permit, drawing approvals, changes and inspections should be clear. Accountability and authority should be clear. Process for engineering, site changes or deviations from the drawings should be clear.
In our experiences, the home owner goes to the city for a permit. The city decides it cannot grant until the CA approves its permit based on its mandate (foot print and site location relative to the hazard zone or wet land etc.). Once the CA approves its permit, construction drawings are then prepared and issued to the city for approval. The city proceeds to review and issue its permit. Construction starts and inspections from the city follow.

The city should be responsible for communication with the CA that the construction is following plan or not. They should be responsible for flagging any build changes or deviations that would need the CA’s approval. They have the skilled personnel.

The CA may not see or approve the construction drawings or site changes.
The CA does not have professional capability to approve construction drawings to Ontario Building codes. It does imply the authority and exercises such with its permit power. The CA may come back and raise concerns, issue change orders or violations or fines to the property owner.

This can be after the city has approved and the property owner has followed process and built to approved drawings and permits. The property owner is left responsible if the CA and city do not agree or work together. Information and approvals should follow a path with gates and checks and not leave the property owner in ambiguity if the activities are approved and compliant. This is unacceptable governance at the expense of the taxpayer and homeowner. If not corrected, for this reason, the CA should not be approving the permit but should be in an advisory role to the city

We are home owners and followed all the procedures and protocol for renovations. We hired engineers and worked hard to meet all regulations. Because of unclear responsibilities, policies and roles we get caught in conflicts between the CA, city and engineers.