bild– ohba presentation: conservation authority act review ... · concluding comments review of...

BILD– OHBA Presentation: Conservation Authority Act Review

Latornell CA Conference November 22, 2017

Association & Participants

BILD: Represents approximately 1,400 member companies involved in all aspects of home building and land development across the GTA

OHBA: OHBA represents over 4,000 member companies, organized through a network of 29 local associations across the Province including our largest local - BILD. Gary Gregoris: Senior Vice President – Mattamy Homes Limited Mattamy, since inception in 1978, has built 90,000 homes across North America BILD/OHBA Member

Overview of Presentation

1. Commentary on Review of Conservation Authorities Act

2. Conservation Authorities as a Service Provider and it’s Customers

Commentary on the Review of the Conservation Authorities Act

Industry & Conservation Authorities

Industry Support of CA Act Review

Review of the Conservation Authorities Act provides an opportunity to clarify the roles and responsibilities of CAs as well as enhance the accountability and transparency.

While CAs have an important role in watershed management, industry is concerned that some CAs are extending their reach beyond a core mandate.

Key Industry Issues

Define Roles & Responsibilities Ensure Accountability & Transparency Clarify Mandate Avoid Duplication Allow Appeals Ensure a more predictable funding model for CAs

Key Industry Issues

Define Roles & Responsibilities

Ensure Accountability & Transparency

Key Industry Issues

Key Industry Issues

Clarify Mandate

Key Industry Issues

Avoid Duplication

Allow Appeals

Allow Appeals

Key Industry Issues

Ensure a more predictable funding model for CAs

Support for Future Regulations

Bill 139 Schedule 4 provides for a legislative framework that is generally supported by the industry to strengthen oversight and accountability + clarify roles & responsibilities.

Implementation details through regulations will be the key in the

next stages of this review.

Conservation Authorities as a Service Provider and it’s Customers

Land Development Approvals Process

* Sales

E/W Permits

MATTAMY/CUSTOMER SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE COMPARISON

Engineering Design

ENVIRONMENTAL SCHEDULE

SUB-WATER SHEDSTUDY

FSEMS/SIS

SECONDARY PLAN

ENGINEERING APPROVALSLANDSCAPE APPROVALS

PERMITS

FINAL CONSTRUCTION

PERMIT SERVICED

DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL

OCCUPANCIES

1-2 YEARS

12-18 MONTHS

6 -12 MONTHS

Industry Challenges

1. Timely feedback on submissions 2. Adherence to schedules 3. Prioritizing submissions 4. Minimal contact throughout process 5. Duplication of submissions 6. Deeming submissions pre-mature 7. Conflicting comments (e.g. ecology and water

resources) 8. Understanding clearance requirements for draft plan

conditions

Industry Challenges

Timely feedback on submissions

Industry Challenges

Adherence to schedules

Industry Challenges

Prioritizing submissions

Industry Challenges

Minimal contact throughout process

Industry Challenges

Duplication of submissions

Industry Challenges Deeming submissions pre-mature

Industry Challenges

Conflicting comments (e.g. ecology and water resources)

Industry Challenges

Understanding clearance requirements for draft plan conditions

Potential Solutions for Discussion 1. One window approval process – remove the need for

overlapping review between the planning and permitting processes.

2. Pre-scheduled touchpoints to update status of submission and allow owners/consultants to provide updates on the project – 30day/60day/90day/120day

3. Submission confirmation completion within 1 week of submission (i.e. vet checklist for submission and advise of any missing components – circulation withheld until complete submission is made).

4. Pre-consultations even on long-range project submissions to ensure consultants, owners and CAs are working towards the same objectives.

Potential Solutions for Discussion

5. Procedural Manual from CAs for developers to understand CAs processes.

6. Accountability on review timelines: provide and adhere to schedule.

7. Utilize redline and conditioning on permits rather than requiring additional submissions.

8. Terms of Reference approved prior to studies proceeding.

9. Utilizing peer reviews and external consultants to help assist CAs in areas with limited resources (i.e. hydro G).

Potential Solutions for Discussion

10. Undertake a review to standardize draft plan conditions with all stakeholders including landowners and Municipalities.

11. Flexibility for time of year construction constraints (i.e. pond stabilization requirements).

12. Pre-scheduled quarterly meetings to review developer issues and priorities.

13. Review of organizational structure by third party.

Concluding Comments Review of the legislation was long overdue.

Regulations are to be the next key discussion point. CAs are a key stakeholder and service provider to the

development industry. We welcome opportunities to work in partnership to make all

our communities better places to live and more sustainable within the context of our need and desire to achieve economic success for our projects in a timely and predictable manner.