Some of it Always Sticks

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!