Monday, 5 March 2012
Chronology Of A Tree Bylaw Review
I requested the documentation which follows:
As requested I provide you with the chronology of events associated with the review process associated with the Tree Protection By-law , I have also included the most recent Council report which also summarizes the process
January 2011 Council directed staff to review the existing tree permit by-law as a result of a delegation to Council that was prompted by the proposal to remove trees at the Beacon Hall Golf Course
March 2011 Senior Management appointed committee of Managers from Planning, Park IES and Building to review the existing by-law and revise the by-law where deemed appropriate
April 2011 By-law review committee conducts a public online survey of the public and stake holders to obtain public input and comments with respect to the existing by-law and proposed revisions in a new Tree Protection By-law.
April 2011 Letter sent out to all stake holders including Golf courses , School Boards , Conservation Authorities, Region of York and Cemetery
April /May 2011 Public notices advertising By -law review placed on our web site , and in the Era Banner
May 2011 Survey concluded with over 100 responses , Participation considered to be very high
May 2011 By-law review committee submits information memo to Council advising of status of by law review and the on going process
January 2012 Draft Tree Protection By-law presented to Council via report PR12-001
January 2012 Council endorses recommendations to post the by-law for public input and comment up until April 3rd 2012, following this the input will be reviewed and considered in formulating the final draft tree protection by-law
January 2012 another round of letters sent off to all stake holders advising that the draft by-law has been presented to Council now available for review and comment until April 3rd 2012
February 2012 Councilor Ballard contacts parks manager to request attendance at his public meeting to be held on March 5th 2012
Invitation for staff to attend meeting is declined.
Jan. /Mar. 4th 3 comments received from non stakeholders group
*************
Report NO.PR 12.001 to the General Committee of Council January !7th 2012 provides an up-to-date summary and recommendations made to Council.
No change in direction, proposed by Councillor Ballard or Gallo. No request made for a public meeting to be held .
Council had to hear about it from Susan Walmer when she requested staff be directed to attend.
Councillor Ballard had already made an inapproprate request for staff to attend the meeting. Councillors have no authority to direct staff.Staff are directed by council resolution.
Walmer apparently decided she could do what Ballard couldn't. She asked Council to direct staff to attend to answer residents' questions on the bylaw.
Talk about commandeering the process.
What's next
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I do not know who Ms Walmer claims to represent. We live on Kennedy Street West and have never heard of her group. Once there was a problem in our area, we formed an inclusive Ratepayers' Group, went to Council, got the matter rectified and never had any more meetings. There was no need to do so.
No special meeting, through the process of committees and thence to Council. Just the same as others who wish Council's attention.
To allow one loud, politically active group to demand a special meeting sets poor precedent. To claim to speak for me shows sheer ignorance.
S'cuse me ? Where is it written that the losers of an election get to tell the victors how to conduct the business of the town?
Just asking is all.
S'cuse me Anonymous March 5, 2012 4:12PM
Where is it written that the residents (whether they voted for winners or losers) cannot express their opinion to THEIR elected officials. Council and staff work for all residents, not just those that voted for them.
I constantly read here that there are "winners" and "losers". The way things are progressing (or not progressing) in this Town, we are all losers.
8:25 AM
What you read here are fiscal objections to subsidizing healthy, well-to-do individuals who provide zip to the town treasury and plead they are 'a special case'. The Mar Report was quite clear. This cost can not continue to be maintained, not sustainable. Really Economics 101.
Post a Comment