Second Part as Promised

On Tuesday, Council went behind closed doors to deal with several matters. After the cameras were gone, they resumed the public session and adopted a recommendation.

At a quarter-to-one in the morning ,they voted to retain the services of Mr. Rod Northey, formerly solicitor for neighbors opposing the Westhill application, to assist in our presentation before the upcoming hearing of the Ontario Municipal Board on the Westhill appeal of the Town's failure to make a decision within the legal time limit.

A recorded vote requested by Councillor MacEachern was six to one. Councillor Collins Mrakas cast the solitary negative. .

A few weeks ago, expert witnesses retained by Mr. Northey to make the case against Westhill's application, on behalf of the opposing neighbors, were retained by the Town with three votes opposed.

In effect, these two decisions on the solicitor and expert witnesses, mean the municipality takes financial responsibility for our own presentation AND that of the opposing neighbors.

It's the continuation of a theme.

At the Public Planning meeting in March 2008.Mr. Northey appeared with witnesses to argue against Westhill's application.

An Ontario Municipal Board hearing was already scheduled. The decision was no longer the town's to make. The OMB was already seized.

Yet Mr. Northey presented an argument to Council against granting the application. .

It served no purpose.

Subsequently,. Mr. Northey requested the OMB to grant a Consolidated Board Hearing.

The Town sent legal counsel to support that argument.

It failed.

An Appeal was filed. Again the town sent legal counsel in support .

O.M.B. authority to grant was challenged. The matter was referred back to the Board.

A new O.M.B. panel determined, indeed they do not have authority to grant a Consolidated Board Hearing.

A further appeal was launched . This time, apparently not wishing to spend more money, the neighbors opted out.

The Town took over.

The action proceeded under the same name. . McCutcheon et al v. Westhill Redeveloment.
The Town paid for the proceeding.

The O.M.B. decision was upheld.

Again the decision was appealed . again in the name of McCutcheon et al v Westhill .

The town paid .

On June 10th, the lower court decision was upheld by the higher court.

Respondents were awarded a thousand dollars in costs.

The Town paid.

By the second OMB refusal , the Town was in for $200Ks legal costs. The final tally will not likely be volunteered.

Expert witnesses retained by Mr. Northey on behalf of opposing neighbors, who presented evidence at the Public Planning Meeting in March 2008 to no obvious advantage,have now been retained by the Town.

They were released by the opposing neighbors, who retained them initially and have had the fees re-imbursed by the town.

The Town's interest in the Westhill application is not the same as the neighbors. We are in effect, piggy-backing the neighbors case on to our own at taxpayers expense
.
The opposing neighbors will pay nothing for their argument to be presented at the OMB.

Now then , Clause 3 of the Town's Code of Conduct comes into play. It says:

"Members of Council will accurately and adequately communicate the attitudes and .decisions of council, even if they disagree with the majority decisions of Council"

"Information concerning adopted policies, procedures and decisions of council shall be conveyed openly and accurately."

Let's see what that looks like.

Early on , the question of cost for a regular OMB hearing. as opposed to a Consolidated Board Hearing was asked.

At two weeks the cost would be " $250 Ks"

A Consolidated Board Hearing. would take seven weeks.

Cost? .... "Triple".

Time requested by both sides for the upcoming Board Hearing, six weeks.

With one lawyer, cost might reasonably be expected at $750Ks.

With two lawyers, the extra one to represent neighbors opposition, complete with their witnesses, the cost might reasonably be expected to double.With taxpayers shouldering the whole burden,.

I am scandalised by that decision .

Is that sufficiently open and accurately conveyed ?

Under the Code, I am now obliged to convey the attitude of the six members of council who made the decision.?

Based on past practice, I believe, no matter how great the cost, these six councillors are prepared to use public resources, to garner another small handful of votes from a pocket of residents on Leslie Street .

Like the traffic calming project in the north-east quadrant that cost a quarter of million dollars.
Like connecting commercial parking lot lights to the town's street lighting system.system to please Mosaic town house complex residents.
Like doling out generous cheques to a handful of residents on Knowles Crescent.
Like "destroying' two beautiful town trees and replacing them with a concrete pad and moving a street over to satisfy one resident on Nisbet Drive.
Like adding half a million dollars to a trail project to satisfy the objections of two resident in a senior building
Like spending hundreds, if not millions of dollars ,to stop a train whistle to please a dozen complainants.
Like agreeing to plant $8 Ks. dollars worth of trees to obscure the horrendous sight of a pole in winter for a couple who eventually agreed it wasn't necessary even while calling an elected representative a liar in a public meeting presided over by the Mayor.

I could go on and on.

Westhill's lands are legally designated for development in the Town of Aurora Official Plan. .

There is but one way for those lands to be removed from development. That is for the Province to do, as they have in Richmond Hill, pay the enormous price to purchase designated development lands to stop building within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

That wasn't the route they chose in Aurora. The Province allowed Westhill's development designation to stay, when they passed the Oak Ridges Moraine Act. It's their legislation, not ours. We are governed by it.

The pretext the town is battling to save the Moraine from marauders is a canard upon which this Mayor and her loyal supporters have surely hoisted themselves

Unfortunately at the potential cost of millions to the taxpayers.

Is that adequate enough and sufficiently acceptable from a Councillor who disagrees, to communicate the attitudes of Council Members in the majority, as required by Clause 3 of Aurora's Code of Conduct.

I rest my case.