when you throw mud. Chris Watts states I am pushing for the Westhill Development proposal.
I am against an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.
That's a serious accusation against a municipal politician. There are always people willing to believe the worst and others to encourage. It's not hard to destroy a reputation.
Whatever defence one might offer inevitably sounds like an excuse.
I can't believe Chris understands the seriousness of his accusation.
I can only point to the post he linked and challenge him to highlight the words that show my opposition to an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing and wholehearted support for Westhill's application.
The purpose of the Ontario Municipal Board can always bear repeating..
The OMB is set up for the benefit of property owners. Anyone who owns a house should appreciate the protection it offers.
I once heard an OMB chairman explain to an opponent;"property owners have rights. People can do whatever they like with their property so long as it doesn't interfere with a neighbour's right to enjoy theirs"
An appeal being heard was against a subdivision proposed to be built on land close to a standing tower water reservoir on Yonge Street in Newmarket.
The chairman added ; "I wouldn't buy a house under a water reservoir but people will make that choice. They have rights too."
The Ontario Municipal Board is about property rights. Everybody's property.
Westhill Development owns the land . The land has development status. The owner has rights. One right is for a decision to be made by the municipality on a proposal within a limited period.
It has been difficult to pin down when this specific site application was made. It appears to have been in the nineties. The time limit placed by the Province on a municipality to make a decision is a matter of months.
When an appeal is made to the OMB, the decision is taken out of the hands of the municipality . We become a party to the hearing. The only influence we have is to successfully persuade the OMB of the seriousness of our concerns and the Board's decision will address them.
Neighbours have rights. They become a party to the hearing. They also have the burden of proving their concerns and they will be addressed in the decision.
The developer is party to the hearing. They have the burden of proving the proposal will not adversely affect the neighbours enjoyment of their property. If the issue is water. Water will be the focus of the hearing.
Neighbours requested the OMB for a Joint Board Hearing, It means the hearing panel will include an environmental expert
The OMB refused. The refusal was appealed to the Divisional Court. Evidence was presented that the OMB did not have the jurisdiction to order a Joint Board Hearing.
The Divisional Court referred back to the OMB to rule on the jurisdictional matter.
The Board did and again refused the Joint Board Hearing.
That was three unsuccessful attempts to win a Joint Board Hearing.
The neighbours decided to spend no more money on pursuit of a Joint Board.
The Town sent legal counsel in support to each of the proceedings. It cost us $135ks public dollars to defend private interest.
Had we not spent that money, the decision would have been the same.
The Town then picked up the ball and appealed the second refusal by the OMB.
The appeal lost. The decision remained the same. Cost went up to $200ks.
The town has now decided to ask for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court to a
Superior Court.
The council vote was six in favour three against. More public money is to be spent.
Still the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing lies ahead.
The Hearing will likely take two weeks. Legal Counsel and a team of experts will present our arguments. Costs are estimated at $200ks for a two week hearing.
If a Joint Board is obtained the hearing will last six weeks. Cost will triple.
It just occurred to me . Estimates cited are legal costs. It's not clear expert witness fees are included.
Councillor Collins Mrakas tells me they can be as high as $15ks.a piece How many are needed I do not know.
At the Public Planning Meeting, in March 2008 , Westhill had a phalanx of experts. We would likely have to match their arguments one for one.
The town's interest lies in ensuring the development will not create negative impact on the environment insofar as our jurisdiction applies.
My support is for the town to undertake her due diligence and pay whatever it costs to protect the public interest.
I can defend that.
I cannot defend spending a quarter of a million dollars of hard-earned tax dollars to protect private interest and duplicating costs already bourne by the private interest with absolutely nothing gained.
Zero, Zilch, Nil and Nada! Amen my friend, Chris.
What do you have to say to that!
Evelyn,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement "My support is for the town to undertake her due diligence and pay whatever it costs to protect the public interest."
I believe that.
And I believe that you believe that.
I apologize if you feel that I have wrongly accused you of supporting the development. Where have you stated that you are opposed?
I guess I am just confused because support for the Westhill development is not in the public's interest. At least not from where I'm sitting.
The cost of the fight indeed seems to be high, as you pointed out at the Public Planning Meeting, in March 2008 , Westhill had a phalanx of experts.
I would expect the town to match their arguments one for one. I would expect the town to protect the public interest in this way.
Just because a developer spends big $ to push through a development why shouldn't the town put up $ and a reasonable fight if there is public interest?
To not put up a fight seems like giving in to bullying. I don't condone bullying, especially at the mega dollar developer level.
I don't believe the public's need or the environments need is served by proceeding with this development.
The water issue alone has many unanswered questions.
Again I find much discomfort with this conclusion:
" Our preliminary assessment of available technical information indicates incomplete understanding of the sustainable yield of the groundwater resource to support all the current demands within the Aurora-Newmarket area.
The Historic decline in water levels in the Yonge Street Aquifer and interference complaints in the community of Vandorf indicates a potential over-draft that may be due to cumulative effects of integrated groundwater takings. "
We already use more water than we can draw. We supplement it with water from Peel & Toronto.
Regardless of water waste which is only a percentage of demand I fail to see how increasing the demand doesn't strain the supply.
As far as I'm concerned no one has presented proof regarding how sustainable our (both Aurora and York Region's ) water infrastructure is for current, and more worry some after "intensification levels".
This is only one of the issues I have with the inevitable intensification.
I would welcome any clarifications you may have.
cheers
As I was explaining this issue to my wife this morning, she said "So, Evelyn Buck is taking sides with the developer?". "No, no. no ", I said, "that's not it at all. I think that Evelyn is probably AS against the construction of a golf course as anyone else, she just cannot abide throwing good money after bad. And, on top of that, Evelyn is offended by Mormac making political hay on the issue, casting themselves as the David to the OMB's Goliath."
ReplyDeleteI had not considered that the town would be agnostic on the issue (i.e. have no interest in it, that the interest in this belongs only to the neighbours). It appears that your post here makes that case, unless I am reading it wrong. I would have thought that for environmental reasons, which i would expect would include more than simply water considerations, would be a town issue.
Are you saying that the town has no interest in this, and so should just butt out?
It appears to me that Evelyn is taking sides with the town. She was elected by thousands of voters, not seventy five.
ReplyDeleteThe zoning for this development was approved and grand-fathered a long time ago.
Environmental laws ensure us that today's golf course designs minimally impact the water table, and the houses won't individually remove any more water from the moraine than any of the hundreds of others in this town that already use wells and septics systems.
Property assessments, construction jobs and ongoing employment are all future benefits from this.
What really needs to happen is for this issue to be resolved BEFORE the election this fall so that the true waste of tax payer dollars by this Mayor is known.