Now Then

In response to the Mayor's e-mail which of course is not intended for myself, I respectfully provide the following information.

An Ontario Municipal Board Hearing arises out of an appeal against a municipal decision

The ball is in the Appellant's court. . The onus is upon the municipality to defend the decision
or lack thereof . Decision making authority is removed from the municipality and transferred to the Ontario Municipal Board

Westhill's initial appeal was against the town's failure to make a decision within the legislated time period. The hearing was pending at the time of the Planning Meeting on January 18th 2008.

At that time, Council decided the application was premature. Needed information had not been provided.

It was heard again on March 4th 2008 with information provided by a phalanx of experts.

Westhill has owned the property since 1984. In the late eighties it had a development designation for estate lots. An application was made to divide the property into ninety-five lots on 135 acres.Since then, a further 71 acres was added.

The proposal prompted a Regional Growth Management Study resulting in a regional O.P. Amendment in 1998.

The study was publicly conducted with participation by property owners, including Westhill.
A Regional Policy was adopted to allow golf courses and cluster housing with privately owned community sewage treatment and water services in some rural areas. Several already exist in the Region. One in Aurora.

Westhill received a designation through the process with the requirement to apply for a site specific amendment on submission of a plan.

A development designation is not a right to receive permits. A plan is required to be submitted
with endless details to be checked and re-checked and determined to align with planning requirements and reported to council for conformity.

It's a tedious process.

On January 18th Council said it was premature. On March 4th 2008, council refused the application.

More than two years have passed. First, a request was made by opposing neighbors with legal representation for the Ontario Municipal Board to order a Consolidated Board Hearing. We sent a lawyer along.

The Board refused.

It was appealed to divisional court. Neighbors had a lawyer. We sent ours along.

The respondents (Westhill) argued the Board did not have authority to order a Consolidated Board Hearing.

It was sent back to the Ontario Municipal Board to be heard again. Neighbours had a lawyer.

The town sent one along.

The Board determined, indeed it did not have the authority .

That decision was appealed to the court. The McCutcheon name was still on the suit. They did not send a lawyer. The town did and paid the bill.

Again it was refused.

It was appealed to a higher court. McCutcheon still the name of record but no lawyer. The town paid the bill again.

It was refused on June 10th Respondents were awarded $1000 costs. The town paid all the bills.

At last, the way is clear for Westhill's Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board to be heard. Almost three years after it was deemed to be premature by the town and refused a month later.

The appeal will be two-fold.

First; failure to make a decision within the legislated time period.

Second ; refusal of the application .

The town will be required to defend:

1. Failure to make a decision within the legislated time limit.

2. Denial of the application.

We have retained two lawyers our own and the former solicitor for McCutcheon.

We have reimbursed McCutcheon for a team of experts retained, but for no identifiable purpose.

As noted in Monday's e-mail, the Mayor has asked the solicitor and he has advised what Councillors might "share" with the public to explain this course of action.

I'm glad I don't have to make it sound like anything but a crock