Residents, conservation authority spat over East Gwillimbury's bylaws

Environmental protection debate before LPAT

YorkRegion.com
Jan 22, 2019
Amanda Persico

He should have been on tour with his band.

Instead, Russ Robson moved back to East Gwillimbury to fight for his family’s rural property -- a fight he thought he won, but has now been resurrected.

The issue is before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal -- the former Ontario Municipal Board.

“Everyone walked away thinking it was fine,” he said of the town’s decision last spring. “Democracy was done, the people said no.”

But it's not done.

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, along with the region, is stepping in to ensure environmental protection for rural lands stays put.

Last spring, the town voted to do away with its proposed environmental protection (EP) zones and instead, reverted back to its 1997 rural zoning uses.

The town’s current bylaws adhere to 1997 levels of environmental protection, predating both the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and the Greenbelt Act, which take precedence over a town’s zoning bylaw.

Reverting back to 1997 measures makes the town’s bylaws nonconforming with provincial legislation, said Rob Baldwin, general manager of planning and development for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.

“We had no option but to appeal,” he said. “It wasn’t intentional, but it’s an awkward position.”

Fighting to protect a five-acre parcel off Queensville Sideroad west of Holland Landing has turned into a full-time gig for Robson.

And he’s not just protecting the land he spent hours scavenging and playing on as a child, but Robson is also representing close to 50 other landowners fighting the same fight.

He’s the force behind the East Gwillimbury Landowners Association, a player in the case before LPAT.

The proposed EP zones would have added land use restrictions to rural properties based on a comprehensive map.

“The EP would have protected the land from landowners, not developers,” Robson said, referring to proposed changes in the new Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, Bill 66.

For some residents, the green highlighted EP area on a map incorporated some 80 per cent of their land, he said.

“It’s like the town just looked at Google Maps,” he added. “It’s like we’re being punished for keeping our lands green and not plowing over our fields."

There was a misconception that the proposed EP lands are under an absolute prohibition, argued Baldwin.

“People looked at the map and saw green and said, 'I’m screwed',” he said.

Instead, the proposed EP classification outlined what could be done on environmentally sensitive lands, something already outlined in various provincial regulations.

“It restricted what could be built on wetlands. But that was already restricted,” Baldwin said. “These restrictions exist regardless of zoning.”

Instead of focusing on what’s not allowed, residents should have focused on what is, he added.

“A 200,000-square-foot warehouse, maybe not. But maybe a riding ring, bed and breakfast, greenhouse or farm stand,” he added. “It was zoned rural. You can build a barn, but not a factory.”

And it depends on the environmental features associated with each plot and parcel.

There was concern that current property owners could not use the land, but the land could be sold for future development.

“If it’s a floodplain area, there wouldn’t be development anyway,” Baldwin added.

Is your land part of the proposed EP zone? Email eastgwillimburylandowners@gmail.com to get involved.