April
23, 2015
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.orgDon 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 PMTo: 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 CouncillorWard 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
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