Innisfil’s ground-breaking Our Shore community permit planning by-law, which regulates development of the Lake Simcoe waterfront, has finally passed all hurdles.
Originally approved by Innisfil Council on May 24, 2017, it took nearly two years of hearings and appeals before it was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, and the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).
And it took additional months to roll out the details of a process for “ecologically sound and safe development along the Lake Simcoe shoreline,” through the Community Planning Permit System.
On May 6, Innisfil Councillors met on ZOOM for a workshop on the CPP system – only the second such document developed in Ontario – and council’s role in the process.
Developed with input from residents, consultants, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, shoreline businesses and the development community, the Community Planning Permit System is a “one window approach” for any shoreline activity, noted Chris Cannon, Town of Innisfil Placemaker/Planner.
The By-law and permitting process covers five areas: zoning amendments, site plans, minor variances, site alteration, and vegetation removal applications.
For most permits – those that meet the standards outlined in the Our Shore by-law (Class 3 permits), or those requiring a “minor variance” (Class 2) – approval authority has been delegated to staff.
It is only Class 1 Permits – relating to variances of more than 50 percent from the standard, permanent docks and marine railways that project more than 40 metres into the water, permanent docks with a cumulative area of more than 115 sq. m., and every boathouse application “even though it meets the development standards” – that will require public notice and that will come to Council for a “yes or no” decision, noted Planner Nick Skerratt.
Skerratt explained that Class 1 Permit applications that come to council will be accompanied by a full report from staff with supporting documentation, and any decision will have to be defensible at the LPAT.
Response wasn’t all positive. “I’ve never seen a 108-page by-law,” said Coun. Bill Van Berkel, describing it as “eight pages of ‘protect the shoreline’, and 100 pages of how to create a bureaucracy.”
Van Berkel said that the town requires so many steps for approvals, and charges so much for its permits, “we’re punishing the people that pay the most taxes (waterfront property owners)… When a 34,000 sq. ft. addition costs $34,000 to $35,000, it’s not right.”
He added, “There has to be a standard, where there is an absolute price of what it’s going to cost, and a timeline. There are things that need common sense – and there’s no common sense here.”
Skerratt pointed out that the Our Shore by-law was actually a “5-in-1 document” that streamlines the process, while providing protection to the existing 1,200 buildings or structures along the shoreline.
But it’s a complex regulatory situation: there may be approvals required from other regulatory agencies, like the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, he noted, and Applicants must have completed all required studies and reports for an application to be deemed complete.
“We do all the legwork of circulating to all agencies,” Skerratt explained – including the provision of a digital drawing, which speeds up the process and cuts costs.
He acknowledged that it has taken months to get the CPPS up and running. “We’re still working out some of the kinks,” Skerratt said, but as staff become more familiar with the process, there are hopes for a two to three week turnaround.
The town has already received five boathouse applications, that are waiting to be brought to council – delayed by the need to get everything ready, update Councilors, and deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mayor Lynn Dollin noted that the Our Shore by-law has brought improvements to the application process, and that the “controversial” in-water boathouse built in Crescent Harbour would never have been constructed “if this by-law had been in place” at the time.
“Boathouses are the evil, but that’s not what I’m talking about,” said Van Berkel. The councillor said he was more concerned about the permitting process for house additions, verandahs, decks and the like – which now require geotechnical and grading plans “for something that’s been there for years,” and face high permit costs.
“It can take a year, year and a half to get a permit,” he said, adding, “Nobody cares.”
“That’s not true. Staff does care,” replied Dollin.
“There is a genuine desire to make things better,” agreed Tim Cane, manager of land use planning. As for costs, he noted that it was a previous council that decided all planning and building permits should be “user pay,” which has driven up fees.
Coun. Alex Waters defended the need for geotechnical and other studies, noting, “Innisfil has a big problem around drainage,” and grading, erosion studies and other geotechnical reports are needed to mitigate flooding, erosion and siltation.
Waters had “one burning question” for staff: how can waterfront property owners extend their docks and boathouses out into Lake Simcoe, on what is essentially Crown Land?
Skerratt said that there is a tradition of use that has been established in Ontario, but at least the Our Shores by-law gives the municipality the power to set standards and regulate development, not only on land but over the water to “the middle of the lake.”
“It is a legacy piece,” agreed Cane, adding that while a handful of landowners have deeded rights to the lakebed, others have been able to encroach because provincial regulations “allow for reasonable use of crown land by properties with lake frontage.”
The Community Planning Permit System “is to keep that truly reasonable and acceptable” from the public’s point of view, he said.
As the online session wrapped up, Coun. Carolyn Payne suggested holding a similar workshop for waterfront property owners, “so they will know what they can and cannot do.”
“If we think there’s a benefit… that’s something we can report back on,” said Cane.
Van Berkel later apologized for his comments, and thanked staff for their efforts. “If I had my choice, there wouldn’t be a boathouse on the lake,” he said, urging the town to cut the cost and speed up the permitting process for small jobs.
After the meeting, Mayor Dollin noted that the Community Planning Permit System is “a new process for everybody, including council.”
The challenge has been the very nature of waterfront properties. “To come up with a Zoning By-law for square lots is one thing,” Dollin said. “You have to have something a little more flexible when dealing with something as irregular as a shoreline.”
She noted that the new system should be able to speed up the permitting process – with the parameters for Class 2 and 3 permits reflecting Zoning By-law regulations that already exist in Innisfil.
As for the requirement that every boathouse application come to council, “that wasn’t what staff proposed,” she admitted. “Staff wanted only Class 1 (boathouses that exceeded the standards by over 50 percent) to come to Council.”
But at the time the by-law was prepared, there was a lot of concern expressed by residents over the “controversial” boathouse at Crescent Harbour specifically and in-water boathouses in general, and the decision was made to ensure that Council would see all applications.
“It is a new process. It’s something I think we desperately needed for our shoreline,” Dollin said. “We need to understand it’s not one size fits all.”
As for Coun. Van Berkel’s complaints, she pointed out, “What’s required today is way different from what was required 30 or 40 years ago. We have learned from our mistakes. We are dealing with some legacy issues.”
At the same time, she acknowledged that there might be a way to reduce the red tape for smaller jobs and “one-off” projects. “We need to approach those differently,” Dollin said. “We can learn.”