Quinte Conservation will issue a retroactive permit to Picton Terminals as it continues to blast the escarpment over Picton Bay.

The company is undertaking what it says are site alterations in the service of Parrish & Heimbecker’s proposed grain silos at the port.

“We have a permitting process,” said QCA Regulations Officer Sharlene Richardson. “It is not appropriate that Picton Terminals did not obtain a permit before they started work on the escarpment. We found out about it at the same time everyone else did.”

A barrage of complaints logged on the QCA’s website last month led the local Conservation Authority to contact the Terminals to begin the process of achieving compliance.

“We’ve been in communication with them, and they are now applying for a permit,” confirmed Ms. Richardson at the time.

QCA toured the site and made measurements to confirm the company was blasting the escarpment within 30m of the shoreline, well within QCA jurisdiction.

The Conservation Authority then implemented a retroactive oversight process to achieve compliance with regulations. That includes setting conditions to be met, and establishing a protocol to be followed as Picton Terminals undertakes work near the shoreline.

As it is a private company, CAO Brad McNevin cautioned, QCA must keep the details private.

In any event, the Authority could have levied a maximum fine of $850 for shoreland alteration without a permit.

We have a permitting process. 
It is not appropriate that Picton Terminals did not obtain a permit before they started work on the escarpment.
We found out about it at the same time everyone else did.

QCA Regulations Officer 
Sharlene Richardson

It did not bring a fine in this case. “We would have approved a permit had they applied,” said Mr. McNevin.

“We try to navigate all compliance agreements to work with the party involved to negotiate what we need from them.”

Such fines are not much of a deterrent, in any event. They have been frozen by the Ford government, which has also stripped Conservation Authorities across the province of many of their powers, while allocating fewer funds to the work they do.

QCA is one of 36 Conservation Authorities across the province that have had to adjust to changes to the Conservation Authority Act that came into effect in April. The bulk of the amendments come from the provincial government’s sweeping housing legislation, Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act.

QCA is no longer empowered to act to prevent water pollution, or to conserve land and natural heritage features. They can oversee flooding risks, erosion, dynamic beaches, and natural shorelines within 30m.

“It’s now really hard to stop interference with natural shorelines,” said Ms. Richardson. “We’ve lost conservation of land as a key criterion in evaluation, and so that really changes how permits are issued.  We used to be very strong about it but not we are not allowed to be.

“It’s very frustrating.”

Changes to the Act weaken one of the primary functions of a Conservation Authority: to issue or deny permits to develop within its jurisdiction.

MZO

Even where Conservation Authority permits are still required, the Minister of Natural Resources can overrule local Authorities. Developers can also appeal permit decisions directly to the Minister.

In addition, local Authorities must sign off on permits if a Ministerial Zoning Order has been issued. The increased use of MZOs by the province means forcing the hand of a CA this way is much more common.

As per its settlement with Picton Terminals, the municipality is set to submit an MZO application by the end of the year.

The White Cliffs of Picton

Even without an MZO, though, “the natural escarpment could be destroyed tomorrow,” said Paul McCoy, QCA’s Planning and Regulations Manager, referring to the limestone cliffs that tower over Picton Bay.

Such unique features of the landscape, a part of natural heritage, are part of what stands to be lost.

“Prior to April 2024, we could have saved at least the vegetated areas of that escarpment,” noted Ms. Richardson.

“We have no budget, no funding even to oversee something like public health and safety,” said Mr. McCoy. Water pollution is no longer part of the mandate.

Conservation Authorities across the province are worried about their capacity to meaningfully partner with municipalities.

The stripping of natural heritage conservation from QCA mandates in 2024 as well as Environmental Impact Studies in 2022, means that municipalities must now pay for an independent peer review of developers’ reports in planning applications.

“We would have provided a fair and impartial review of any proposed plans,” said Mr. McNevin.

“Now municipalities must pay for that. We were that environmental arm working with municipalities to provide that service,” he notes.

Municipalities are scrambling to come up with legislation to fill the gaps. In the absence of meaningful oversight by QCA when it comes to Picton Terminals’ work on the escarpment, for example, a Site Alteration Bylaw would give the municipality jurisdiction.

But it doesn’t have one.

“There is a gap in our legislation,” notes Councillor Kate MacNaughton. “For no reason I am aware of, a site alteration by-law, first proposed over four years ago in our By Law Review process, has been put off and put off.”

“That means we simply do not have the tools in place to prevent developers from clearcutting lots in preparation for development that never comes, or quarrying rock in the service of a building proposal that never materializes, even in the absence of a signed contract.

“Right now, anyone can move any earth they want, any trees, or any cliffs.”