[All] Discussion with Ecojustice re: Ministry decision

[Eleanor Grant]

Greg has a point.  I sure wish KW had a group focussed on Housing issues!
I would question how socially useful it is to build townhouses in an area
that's not accessible by transit and never will be.  It sounds like
somebody just trying to make more money.  The environmentally relevant
thing would be the number of homes (ie vehicles) in a protected area.

Eleanor
On 18 Jul 2016 15:05, "Gregory C. Michalenko" <gcmichalenko at uwaterloo.ca>
wrote:

> RE:  2 luxury lots vs 20 town houses.I don't think it is wise for GREN to
> get mixed up in a residential housing dispute.  This one appears to be
> class-based NIMBY, a few millionaires wanting to defend their own interests
> vs people they deem less worthy of consideration as human beings.
>
>  Waterloo Region currently has a list of over 4,000 families needing
> socially assisted housing, and there is also a great need for town housing
> for people with modest means.  Surely the needs of people like that should
> be the highest priority.  I recently went to the grand opening of a new
> community garden in Preston in a two-year old social housing development
> consisting of several apartment buildings.  It took much effort to clear
> all the administrative and legal hurdles to get the garden going.  The
> stories of the resident-gardeners were very moving:  "I'm no longer lonely
> - I've made friends though the garden', "I know so many more neighbours
> now", "It's so good to build something together and be out in the fresh
> air".
>
> That is what neighbourhoods should be about:  building bridges, not walls.
>   Donald Trump builds walls.  We don't.
>   We should just ignore this housing dispute, and not take either side.
> It has nothing to do with GREN.
> - Greg Michalenko
> ------------------------------
> *From:* All [all-bounces at gren.ca] on behalf of water.lulu at yahoo.ca [
> water.lulu at yahoo.ca]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 18, 2016 12:29 PM
> *To:* GREN >
> *Subject:* [All] Discussion with Ecojustice re: Ministry decision
>
> Hi folks
>
> Just got off the phone with Ecojustice staff today. We discussed the MOECC
> minister's decision regarding the Part II order request for Hidden Valley
> and explored the options for potential follow up.
>
> First off, some of the responses by the Minister were rather vague in
> nature. There are passages where they say they are satisfied with results
> but lack specificity as to why they are satisfied. What evidence is there
> to prove the concern has been reasonably addressed? That is the kind of
> analysis we need to do on that Minister's decision.
>
> Some of the issues I raised are the fact that they admit Schneider's creek
> is going to be the discharge point for fisheries yet they admit it is the
> only fish habitat in the area and they lack specificity on how they will
> protect that area from additional salt loading.  They are going to
> implement a salt mitigation strategy for Hidden Valley to divert salt
> runoff to the river but how will that impact the water quality and water
> flow of the interior water features if this water is going somewhere else?
> Those are the kind of questions we can raise with the MOECC. She encouraged
> me to continue to have dialogue with the Ministry about those issues.
>
> Because specific legislation on the criteria for habitat requirements has
> yet to be defined, we can't demand critical habitat delineation for some of
> the species found in Hidden Valley yet. Until they make it law as they did
> for Jefferson Salamanders, it is a challenge to get protection for them at
> this time but never the less they will likely still require an exemption
> under section 17 of the Endangered Species Act (kill permit process) if
> they want to encroach upon likely habitat areas.
>
> There is a group of local residents including Ayman Samara who live
> currently around Hidden Valley Dr. who want to protect the natural features
> of the area and make sure that multi-unit townhouse projects are not
> happening in the area. (Developer Dan Sack is behind that move wanting to
> put 40 townhouse units on 2 luxery lots). I mentioned this to Ecojustice
> and they advised the first step is to formalize incorporation. The process
> can be done for free through Pro Bono law Ontario this way if the community
> group run into any issues it provides them with a measure of addressing
> economic or legal threats from developers. If they wish to pay for
> incorporation it is usually around $60 to do it.
>
> In terms of buyout of Hidden Valley for $2 million she recommended we
> approach the GRCA to look into the land acquisition and work with the
> community group to launch a Kickstarter to raise funds to help make it
> happen. She said grant monies in Ontario for land acquisitions are very
> difficult to find. Southwestern Ontario is a really hard place to protect.
>
> Currently OMB reform is taking place. Ecojustice is looking at ways to
> reducing the bullying of the public and municipalities into supporting non
> sustainable projects.  Laura Bowman at Ecojustice has their position paper
> on it. We spoke about Waterloo's issues at length. I'll get the paper from
> her and relay.
>
> The Environmental Bill of Rights is currently under review and their staff
> person handling that position paper is named John Swaigen. I'll try to get
> in touch with him on that too.
>
> Also being updated this fall is the policy for Environmental Assessment.
> One of the things we discussed is the need to sequence conservation
> strategies before approvals, not after. So many times conservation measures
> are to be implemented in the detailed design stage but if constraints are
> found after approvals it clearly shows a pro development bias. Proper
> delineations and prevention should logically occur before approvals to make
> sure ecological features are reasonably protected as early as possible to
> avoid costs on all sides.
>
> I mentioned concerns about how our primary recharge located away from
> existing wellheads are not being reasonably protected. Developers target
> the hummocky hills to exploit the gravel to offset building costs and
> unlike a quarry they don't need a permit to do it.  I also told her how we
> are currently excluded from the Greenbelt plans yet we have growth
> pressures without the proof to show we have the water budget to support
> this anticipated growth. I told her I'd like to do an EBR request to better
> plan our future water budget. She advised we use the Clean Water Act and
> the Planning Act as the basis of that request.
>
> I told her many quarry pits pose a risk to the Primary Recharge areas. We
> have ESL laws locally but are told by the Province that these areas are
> still at risk for potential gravel extractions. What can we do to avert the
> risks to our groundwater supplies? She stated that the City and Regional
> levels control zoning laws. It is at the local level that ARA zoning laws
> are set. If the lands are not zoned for aggregates locally extractions
> won't happen on those lots. (We have more power over that issue than I was
> led to believe previously!)
>
> So all in all it was a wonderful meeting. We have more power than we
> thought to influence outcomes particularly in regards to source water
> protection so keep hammering folks!
>
> Lulu :0)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20160718/ee47200e/attachment.html>