Letter to the Mayor and Local Councillor Re: Lack of City Response


April 23, 2015

 
To:       Mayor Fred Eisenberger,    Fred.eisenberger@hamilton.ca
            Councillor VanderBeek,     Arlene.VanderBeek@hamilton.ca

Subject:  Lack of City Response Concerning 979 Governors Road

Dear Mayor Eisenberger and Councillor VanderBeek:

I am writing again to let you know that my wife and I are extremely disappointed with the City’s response to our concerns regarding the development at 979 Governors Road.   Over a month ago -- March 18, 2015 -- we wrote to you, noting that the enforcement of the NEC and City site plan conditions on the development at 979 Governors Road was not happening, and the naturalized meadow/deer yard at the east end of that property was being destroyed.

Even more disturbing was correspondence and conversations I had with the NEC and the City of Hamilton that demonstrated that each agency claimed the other was in charge of the enforcement.  When this was pointed out to the City and NEC, I was heartened when Councillor VanderBeek wrote to say that either “myself or staff will be in touch, once I have further clarity on this issue”.

To date, now over a month later, we have not heard a word from the City.  At best, this is poor customer service; at worst, we are being purposely ignored.   The development continues and the non-approved fencing and construction waste remain, having obliterated the deer yard.

The NEC did write back to say their inspector had been on site and that they were confident the area outside the development zone would be remediated after the construction was over.  The “protected” trees that were removed without permission would be replaced on a one-for-one basis (does this mean a seedling in place of a 30’ mature tree?).

Had enforcement happened in January, when the City and NEC were first made aware of the situation, the destruction of the deer yard could have been prevented.  Why would we now believe that some mythical enforcement, which may happen over a year from now, will remediate the area to a naturalized state?   Given the experience to-date, how easy will it be for an inspector to say “what naturalized area?” or “this is just part of a landscaped/sodded/fenced backyard”?  Will the enforcement officials roll over on this also?

We have completely lost our faith and trust in the enforcement/inspection system.   This has prompted us to document the before and after situation, which has now been posted to a new website: www.helpsavedundas.blogspot.ca .  At least there will now be a record and reference, with respect to what the naturalized regeneration of the deer yard area and wildlife corridors should be -- if the regulations are ever enforced.  This is in preparation for that point in the future when we again will have to fight to have the area outside of the development zone keep in its naturalized and un-fenced state.  In addition, we have begun to share this information publically.  Ideally, this may help bring some pressure to bear with respect to having the site re-naturalized and un-fenced, to once more allow the decades-old movement of deer and other wildlife through the area.

We would like to invite you both to come and see the situation for yourselves.  We would be pleased to give you the same tour we are now giving the neighbours and other interested parties.  It would be useful for you, to be better able to visualize the situation.  Please let us know when you would be available for a visit.

Yours Truly,

Kyle Benham
975 Governors Road, Dundas

Cc:
Ted McMeeken, MPP: tmcmeekin.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Don Scott, NEC Chair: cuesta@cuestaplanning.com
Debbie Pella-Keen, NEC Director: debbie.pellakeen@ontario.ca
Julie Litzen, Councillor Assistant: Julie.Litzen@hamilton.ca


 

Copy of the March 18th Correspondence Regarding Lack of Enforcement

From:  VanderBeek, Arlene <Arlene.VanderBeek@hamilton.ca>
Sent:   Wednesday, March 18, 2015 4:06 PM
To:       Kyle Benham; Litzen, Julie; 'debbie.pellakeen@ontario.ca'
Cc:      'Bohdan.Wynnycky@ontario.ca'; Wong, George

Subject:          RE: Responsibilities for Inspection and Enforcement

Mr. Benham,

I’ve received your update and either myself or staff will be in touch, once I have further clarity on this issue.

Regards,

Arlene

Arlene VanderBeek
Hamilton City Councillor
Ward 13 – Community of Dundas
905-546-2714
arlene.vanderbeek@hamilton.ca

 
 

From: Kyle Benham 
Sent: March-18-15 3:46 PM
To: VanderBeek, Arlene; Litzen, Julie; 'debbie.pellakeen@ontario.ca'
Cc: 'Bohdan.Wynnycky@ontario.ca'; Wong, George

Subject: Responsibilities for Inspection and Enforcement

I just had a very disturbing conversation with the NEC regarding the situation at 979 Governors Road.

I have to admit that I was taken back and dismayed when heard from both the City and NEC that the other would be investigating what would be needed to comply with the site plan and any other conditions.  This does give my any confidence that this situation is being given the attention necessary or that it will be resolved in a satisfactory manner.

On Monday, I had a chance to speak to the City inspector Mr. Nick Anastasopoulos after he wrote to inform me that the issues that have been raised “ relate to the NEC permit and a formal response will follow from the NEC”.  In conversation he clarified that issues related to trees, protection fences, construction activity within the naturalized areas, etc. were NEC issues and that the NEC would be the lead agency with respect to enforcement.   When asked about the City’s role with respect to enforcing the site plan which shows the limit of development, tree protection fences, trees to be protected, etc., he reiterated that the NEC had endorsed/signed off on those plans and would be enforcing them. 

Yesterday, Mr. Bohdan Wynnycky at the NEC wrote to inform me that their inspector had been on site, talked to the land owners and were working to ensure that development proceed in accordance  with the conditions of the NEC’s Development Permit. I was also invited to call him if I had any questions, which I did with respect to just what actions were going to be taken.

Mr. Wynnycky and I were able to connect today.  When asked what the NEC was asking the developersto do, he noted that that it was up to the City and Conservation Authority to determine where the development was not in compliance with the site plan.   He seemed very clear that the other agencies would have to determine what would need to be done to meet the requirements of the site plan.  It seemed that then, the NEC would advise the owners what need to be done.  While he noted that the developer/owner seemed to be willing  to cooperate, this begs the question why they did not comply in the first place.

My expectation is that the site plan, as required by NEC, will use the shown tree protection fence to protect the trees just north of our property, the large oak at edge of the meadow and contain construction activity within the development zone.  I also believe that the mounds of soil pushed into the meadow must be removed immediately to allow it to grow as naturally as possible during the construction period  and allow deer and other wildlife to safely move through the area.   The removal of the soil mounds should not be allowed to wait until construction is over,  particularly since this would likely not have happened if our initial complaint of January 2105, had been dealt with and the tree projection fence installed at that point.   This needs to be done regardless of who is the  “lead” agency. 

I truly need your assistance with this matter.  It is causing a great deal of distress for both my wife and myself.
 
Kyle Benham
975 Governors Road

1 comment:

  1. I am not surprised at Vanderbeek's actions and choices, she in my opinion is a horrible city councillor and shouldn't be in office.

    ReplyDelete