[All] Letter sent to Wilmot Township

Mon Aug 8 10:34:02 EDT 2011

Lulu...good, well researched letter...will they ignore you because you are a constituent of Waterloo and not of Wilmot???  I’m sure your concern and response has not made you a popular person with them. 

 The very ”generous” developers are fronting the money ????  that’s how they get what they want in this Region (and all over)   Just keep “Bulling” their way forward...like the protected forest that was  cut

down in the Doon South area (I think) last year   but they were caught before the six month statute of limitations was up, and Region made them REPLANT it  and also FINED them.

The only good thing coming out of that was the fact that they could not use the land  other than to replant it with the’ new and young’ forest trees that they had destroyed.

  But the BULLIES cost us another big loss of our ( too few)  oxygenating mature trees. ...we’re already 40% short of these trees .

So the old system carries on... the developers say “Just DO IT and PAY THE FINE “  and we’ve got what we wanted in the first place...it just cost them a ‘bit more’ .

The lady who thinks the Line will be safer  paved (after her daughter’s death)  doesn’t realise that this will only invite more speed and a false sense of security for the young folks who won’t still be able to

have a ‘clear view’ of the oncoming traffic over those very high hills and  therefore will be in more danger  of accidents.   I’d be interested in the  Wilmot response.    Ginny

From: all-bounces at gren.ca [mailto:all-bounces at gren.ca] On Behalf Of Louisette Lanteigne
Sent: August-08-11 2:24 AM
To: all at gren.ca
Subject: [All] Letter sent to Wilmot Township

Hi folks

Forgot to send this to you earlier but here it is none the less. This is the email sent to Wilmot Township regarding the paving of the West Side Lands. Different set of questions for this gang. 

Lulu

--- On Sat, 8/6/11, Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com> wrote:

From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
Subject: Fw: Wilmot Line Paving & OMB concerns
To: les.armstrong at wilmot.ca, barry.fisher at wilmot.ca, al.junker at wilmot.ca, jeff.gerber at wilmot.ca, peter.roe at wilmot.ca, mark.murray at wilmot.ca
Cc: tim.ryall at ontario.ca, cbentley.mpp at liberal.ola.org, commissioner at eco.on.ca, dcansfield.mpp at liberal.ola.org, kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org, jwilkinson.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org, rbartolucci.mpp at liberal.ola.org, scott.witmer at waterloo.ca, karen.scian at waterloo.ca, angela.vieth at waterloo.ca, diane.freeman at waterloo.ca, mark.whaley at waterloo.ca, jeff.henry at waterloo.ca, melissa.durrell at waterloo.ca, brenda.halloran at waterloo.ca
Date: Saturday, August 6, 2011, 6:43 PM

Dear Hon. Mayor and Council Members for Wilmot Township

The exclusion of the endorsement by the City of Waterloo Council towards the recent road paving of the Wilmot Line may very well constitute as contempt of court in violation to a recent Ontario Municipal Board Ruling issued in May 6, 2010 which recognizes the fact that the City of Waterloo does have jurisdictional responsibility over their portion of the maintenance and improvements for the Wilmot Line. 

As a resident of Waterloo, I was very upset to see the road paved. The township of Wilmot acted in such a manner that it denied citizens the legal right to participate in a public process because there was a failure to reasonably notify the public on this matter. There was no transparency of process. The township buried the tender in an omnibus bill and denied citizens right to call for a bump up in EA processes to protect this sensitive area: the source of our shared ground water resources. This was a heritage roadway.

The conduct of your council has infringed upon cival rights and liberties because your council acted independently with developers without due process and without the fair representation of the City of Waterloo. The Ontario Municipal Board clearly recognized the jurisdiction of the City of Waterloo in regards to Wilmot line but your Municipality clearly disregarded this fact when they paved the road in absence of council approval. 

There has been over 20 years of public opposition regarding development along the Wilmot Line. These properties have been subject to multiple OMB appeals, two of which I've been personally involved with. This area inspired the first municipal Sub-Watershed Study, fostered ground breaking legislation to establish the Region's Environmentally Sensitive Landscape designation because both the pubic and municipalities are highly aware of the enormous ecological constraints of this area. These solutions were supported because the risks were identified. 

Here are links to two master's thesis specific to the Wilmot Line that cite the policy changes that came with the recognition of the associated risks of this area: 

Radical Green Political Theory and Land Use Decision Making in the Region of Waterloo by Tanya Markvart
http://www.environment.uwaterloo.ca/research/asmtplan/documents/Ontario_6.pdf

Towards a Management Plan for the Waterloo Moraine: A Comprehensive Assessment of its Current State within the Region of Waterloo
by Lindsay Pouin
uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/10012/4843/1/Poulin_Lindsay_N.pdf

Please provide me with a written response in regards to the following question:

1. The approval for the paving of the Wilmot Line was batched into a municipal decision that afforded millions directed towards general road maintenance without even referencing specific terms such as Wilmot Line or West Side Lands in spite of 20 years of opposition towards these projects. Why did the Township of Wilmot failed to address the paving of the Wilmot Line with transparency in Council? 

2. Why did Wilmot Township fail to adequately notify the residents of Wilmot Line of the intent to pave the road? No flyers or information was provided to area residents at all. No signs were placed, no information provided on the city website to show the intent to pave this highly controversial roadway. 

3. Did Wilmot Township staff review the OMB ruling for OMB appeal PL091182 prior to calling the City of Waterloo's Director of Transportation, Phill Hewittson to ask for funds to support the paving of Wilmot Line?

4. Was the Township of Wilmot even notified about the OMB appeal PL091182 which involved amendments specific to the funding of Wilmot Line which lies in the jurisdiction of Wilmot Township?

5. In the Waterloo Chronicle on July 19th, Wilmot planning director, Harold O’Krafka stated: “The bottom line is Waterloo said, ‘hey, it’s not our road and we want nothing to do with it.’ They should have just stuck to that.” 

The statements made by Mr. OKrafka appears to conflict with the OMB ruling for PL091182. It is clear from the OMB ruling that the Board clearly recognizes that the City of Waterloo does have some jurisdictional responsibility over it's portion of road maintenance and improvements otherwise it would have not mandated that the developers pay the "city's portion" for maintenance etc.  Does the city council agree or disagree with Mr. Okrafka's view?

6. Who at the Township of Wilmot made the decision to tender the work to pave the Wilmot line in an omnibus motion? What name, what department?

7. Did council members know the omnibus bill contained the tender to pave the Wilmot Line when they voted to support it?

Please review the following email below that has been shared with the City of Waterloo Council, the Ontario Transportation Minister, the Attorney General of Ontario, the MMAH minister among others. 

Thank you kindly for your time.

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ontario
N2V 2L2

--- On Sat, 8/6/11, Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com> wrote:

From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
Subject: Wilmot Line Paving & OMB concerns
To: scott.witmer at waterloo.ca, karen.scian at waterloo.ca, angela.vieth at waterloo.ca, diane.freeman at waterloo.ca, mark.whaley at waterloo.ca, jeff.henry at waterloo.ca, melissa.durrell at waterloo.ca, brenda.halloran at waterloo.ca, dcansfield.mpp at liberal.ola.org, kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org, jwilkinson.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org, rbartolucci.mpp at liberal.ola.org
Cc: tim.ryall at ontario.ca, cbentley.mpp at liberal.ola.org, commissioner at eco.on.ca
Date: Saturday, August 6, 2011, 3:30 PM

Dear Hon. Mayor and Waterloo City Council Members

On March 23, 2010 I was a participant in an OMB Process regarding Municipal File  30T-0540, 30T-05403,30T-97024, properties known collectively as "the West Side Lands". This hearing secured revised draft plan amendments regarding the anticipated road improvements required for the Wilmot Line. 

The Ruling is dated May 06, 2010 and on the last page of the final ruling for OMB appeal PL091182 is states the following passage:

City of Waterloo Condition No. AP-G-37 – Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-97024
Revised Condition
AP-G-37 That the Owner agrees that the City of Waterloo will not pay the cost of road
improvements to the Wilmot Line, and that the City portion of any road
improvements shall be borne by the Owner.

A PDF copy of the ruling can be seen online here: 
www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl091182-May-06-2010.pdf

Recently in the press, the following statements were issued: The passages taken from the reports have reference to the attachments, which are copies of the related published articles for your reference. 

-The gravel road is owned by Wilmot Township but is partly maintained by the city.
see attachment: Record_July18

-Waterloo does not own the Wilmot Line but maintains it in winter. 
-Subdivision developers are paying the $180,000 bill to pave Wilmot Line.
see attachment Record_July20

-The City of Waterloo shares maintenance costs, but it will not be responsible for any money spent paving the road, said city chief administrative officer Tim Anderson. 

-Director of transportation Phil Hewittson said last week the township called to request the city help fund the paving. He refused. “I didn’t know they were actually going to proceed, I thought the fact we weren’t going to pay would deter them,” he told councilors.

see attachment Chronicle_July19

In light of these articles, as well as the May 6, 2010 OMB ruling for PL091182, I have the following questions which I would like written responses to:

1. Why was Wilmot Township and their taxpayers not represented or included at the OMB hearing PL091182 regarding amendments specific to Wilmot Line, a property they own? 

2. Why did the Director of Transportation,  Mr. Hewittson stated to council “I didn’t know they were actually going to proceed, I thought the fact we weren’t going to pay would deter them" when clearly the OMB ruling issued last year on May 6 2010 secured:  that the City of Waterloo will not pay the cost of road improvements to the Wilmot Line, and that the City portion of any road improvements shall be borne by the Owner. 

3. Was Mr. Hewittson, in anyway informed of the OMB ruling for PL091182 prior to making his statement as noted in section 3?

4. Who's responsibility was it to inform Mr. Hewittson of the draft plan amendments secured by way of OMB case PL091182 specific to the details of funding of the City of Waterloo's portion of the Wilmot Line improvements?

5. In light of the conditions of OMB ruling PL091182, is it truthful and reasonable to state that the $180,000 paid for by the West Side Lands Subdivision Developers to pave the Wilmot Line represents "the City of Waterloo's" portion of the paving? 

6. In light of OMB ruling for PL091182, that the Board clearly recognized the fact that the City of Waterloo shares a joint responsiblity in the planning of the Wilmot line, that the City of Waterloo has maintenance costs associated that will be paid for by the developers.
What evidence exists to show the City of Waterloo endorsed the recent paving of the Wilmot Line?

7. Has the City of Waterloo filed a certified copy of the ruling for PL091182 with the superior courts? If so the paving of the road without the endorsement of city staff may be viewed as contempt of court. 

Wilmot Line Road marks the western boundary of the land granted to the Six Nations in the late 1700s. It is a heritage roadway, designed for horse and buggy not cars. The roadway runs through hummocky lands with bad sight-lines overtop areas of primary recharge.  The road runs though Regionally protected forests identified as breeding locations for area sensitive endangered birds species and threatened Jefferson Salamanders. The road runs over top Monastery Creek, a cold water trout habitat and commercial fishery. This road work logically should have been subject to a class EA schedule C process but before any transparent public process took place, the paving happened. 

8. What legal recourse can citizens, the City or Province take to address matters of this nature?  Who is responsible for enforcement when actions like this take place? 

9.The OMB mandates the City is responsible for compliance to OMB rulings but if the city takes a "Do nothing" approach is that considered an act of compliance or does it legally make them an accomplice to this act?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." 

(Edmund Burke)

Thank you kindly for your time

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ontario
N2V 2L2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110808/08e05610/attachment.html>