Developer charged in razing of 118 moraine trees

[Shwa]

Here is an article from the Toronto Star about developers deciding that they would rather take the fines than wait for the OMB decision about their golf course development on protected and sensitive Oak Ridges Morraine lands.

It appears that it is cheaper and easier to destroy than develop within the public trust and this destruction was done deliberately. If so, they should get a 100k fine per tree.

[Wild Bill]

Here is an article from the Toronto Star about developers deciding that they would rather take the fines than wait for the OMB decision about their golf course development on protected and sensitive Oak Ridges Morraine lands.

It appears that it is cheaper and easier to destroy than develop within the public trust and this destruction was done deliberately. If so, they should get a 100k fine per tree.

We have an interesting difference of philosophy, Shwa. My opinion is that if the OMB or any other public department cannot make a decision in a reasonable length of time THEY should be fined!

IOW, if the OMB has taken too long (par for the course with any government body, if you'll pardon the pun!) give THEM a 100k fine!

We do something similar already with the court system, if a defendant has been waiting an excessive length of time to have a trial. I think this idea is a great addition to the checks and balances of a governing system. A public body must do its job efficiently or face immediate penalties! Man, what a concept!

Sure, they pay their fines with OUR money but still, the embarrassment factor is HUGE! Such fines would have to be Career Limiting Moves within the civil service!

If they can't do their job, get rid of them!

Edited July 9, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Remiel]

We have an interesting difference of philosophy, Shwa. My opinion is that if the OMB or any other public department cannot make a decision in a reasonable length of time THEY should be fined!

While some sort of incentive might be in the cards, I do not think this would work at all. The very first thing that would happen is that any oversight board that was behind in its work would get swamped with phony applications of people seeking to cash is on the free money after their " application " took too long to process.

[Michael Hardner]

Clearly the process here is failing everybody.

Long wait times for the developer to get a decision, toothless and tiny fines that don't protect the environment.

Maybe Dalton McGuinty can actually FIX this problem, after all he's a lawyer right ?

[charter.rights]

We have an interesting difference of philosophy, Shwa. My opinion is that if the OMB or any other public department cannot make a decision in a reasonable length of time THEY should be fined!

IOW, if the OMB has taken too long (par for the course with any government body, if you'll pardon the pun!) give THEM a 100k fine!

We do something similar already with the court system, if a defendant has been waiting an excessive length of time to have a trial. I think this idea is a great addition to the checks and balances of a governing system. A public body must do its job efficiently or face immediate penalties! Man, what a concept!

Sure, they pay their fines with OUR money but still, the embarrassment factor is HUGE! Such fines would have to be Career Limiting Moves within the civil service!

If they can't do their job, get rid of them!

First of all the OMB hasn't taken too long in the first place. As we can see from the municipal approval process it has taken 12 years to get to a municipal decision. This seems very much a complicated negotiation probably with multiple agencies involved.

2 years to go to the OMB is not unrealistic and is very much the developer's delay. You see, the OMB can be called within a 3 month notice, if both parties are prepared. It is a quasi-judicial panel (with only 1 member required) that must permit due-process, follow judicial rules of evidence and cross-examination, and full disclosure. If it has taken 2 years more than likely the information provided to council wasn't enough.

Developers going ahead without all the approvals should be hammered by the courts. Otherwise why would we entrust the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, The Building Code Act and all the other regulations and by-laws to protect us? Vigilantism and anarchy is not the way to go in planning matters.

I do know that the Court of Appeal ruled on a similar case where a builder went ahead constructing without permits. The City of Mississauga was taking 1 year to issue permits at the time and the developer complained they couldn't wait any longer. The lower court ruled that the developer was aware of the time required and should planned his construction accordingly. His appeal was denied.

[Molly]

Clearly the process here is failing everybody.

TMI... we live in a neighbourhood that is of extra-special interest to the conservation authourity. Council recently expanded CA authourity, to spite one council member-- all very petty and childish. We dont have anything to do with that personality conflict, but got sideswiped.

So... one of our neighbours made the grave error of appearing on the C.A radar, by innocently asking about obligations/restrictions. Now he can't even bring in enough topsoil to finish leveling his lawn without being obliged to first pay for an environmental assessment.

In principle, everyone (or nearly everyone) is thoroughly in favor of environmental protection, and is willing to go along with a LOT over it... but there comes a point when the red tape, unjustified expense, intrusion and interminable delay is so very far over the top and beyond reason, that you just ... spread the topsoil/ cut the trees/proceed with real life, and pay the fine if one is assessed.

If the process takes 14 or 15 years from the time the ball is set in motion... wow. That's a little much. 14 or 15 months is long time in most folks' plans.

[Molly]

double post

Edited July 10, 2010 by Molly

[Bonam]

Fines for these types of civil infractions are codified in law for a reason. You have a choice, you can follow the law, or you can choose to ignore it and accept the possibility that you will have to pay the fine. There is nothing wrong with taking the latter choice. Ever park your car where you're not supposed to cause you really needed to get somewhere quick and just thought to yourself something along the lines of: "whatever, if I get a ticket I'll just pay it"? Same thing.

Anyway the main problem was clearly on the side of the agency which delayed for far too long.

Environmental assessments and regulations drag on for ages, often much to our detriment. How many decades has the BC Peace River Site C hydro project been trapped in the red tape for now? It is plainly ridiculous.

[Shwa]

Anyway the main problem was clearly on the side of the agency which delayed for far too long.

This is true because we should be living in an era of assembly line McJustice right?

No, this is the Oak Ridges Moraine we are talking about and not some 12 year old brownfield in Hamilton. Hundreds of other developers can abide by the OMB timing requirements and are thoughtful enough to tread carefully when it comes to development on sensitive and protected lands. And further when the local population has already said no to the development.

[charter.rights]

You have a choice, you can follow the law, or you can choose to ignore it and accept the possibility that you will have to pay the fine.

If you want quick approvals then prepare to have most things denied.

Most developments are not cut and dried "make-an-application-and-get-approved" processes. Often times they are complex negotiations, based on studies, reports and professional opinions. There is engineering involved at every stage of the process and many agencies - power requirements to conservation to traffic - that must be consulted. Without all the regulations (you know "the laws") then we would have citizen protest after protest fighting developers and the money interests.

How about we put up a wind turbine on your neighbours property. He is alright with it. You don't need to be consulted, by law. So let's see if you agree with it and support it......

The review of developments before construction and future uses cause damage to us or the environment is not something to be taken lightly. It the whole process takes 10 years then so be it. I certainly would not want the tiers of government to quickly approve that toll highway through my wetlands and farmland that developers care little about, without taking a long look at it first.

[nicky10013]

I live in Aurora. I wouldn't be surprised if she (the mayor) approved it and now is railing against it for political reasons. She quietly cut funding to a local cultural centre by 50% and then went around at local events championing how she was going to double their funding. My friend lost her job because of that political ploy.

Edited July 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[Borg]

Here is an article from the Toronto Star about developers deciding that they would rather take the fines than wait for the OMB decision about their golf course development on protected and sensitive Oak Ridges Morraine lands.

It appears that it is cheaper and easier to destroy than develop within the public trust and this destruction was done deliberately. If so, they should get a 100k fine per tree.

Now they get to see how the farmer feels

Borg

[Molly]

This is true because we should be living in an era of assembly line McJustice right?

No, this is the Oak Ridges Moraine we are talking about and not some 12 year old brownfield in Hamilton. Hundreds of other developers can abide by the OMB timing requirements and are thoughtful enough to tread carefully when it comes to development on sensitive and protected lands. And further when the local population has already said no to the development.

"Environmentally sensitive" seems to mostly mean "home to well-to-do and politically connected".

[P. McGee]

I planted trees over a planned golf course near Milton where the developer decided to start cutting without having his permits in order. He was required to have it all replanted, to the tune of around $100k or so I believe.

[P. McGee]

Here's a link on that if anyone's interested:

http://www.insidehalton.com/news/article/440249--vastis-court-ordered-replanting-nears-completion

$33k in fines and $122k replanting cost.

[Shwa]

Here's a link on that if anyone's interested:

http://www.insidehalton.com/news/article/440249--vastis-court-ordered-replanting-nears-completion

$33k in fines and $122k replanting cost.

Wow! That's a lot of money, and probably enough to fund a defence case had he chosen. So it looks like he knew what he was doing was wrong to start with.

You say you were the one planting the trees? It says nursery stock used to reforest, so what sort of trees and shrubs were used?

[P. McGee]

I was one of a crew of about 12 or so. The trees ranged from seedling size to maybe 8' tall and included 3 or 4 species each of maple and oak, one or two species of hickory, probably some birch, plus trembling aspen, white pine, white cedar, white spruce and hemlock. The larger trees were mostly in clusters of 5 or so, with seedlings filling the remaining area. The shrubs I couldn't name offhand since I was working with the trees mostly, maybe some elderberry, serviceberry and similar?.

[nicky10013]

Update: My friend who is running for council here in Aurora said that, as I predicted, Aurora Town Council actually approved this project. Now that they're against it shows that it's been purely politics.

[Shwa]

Update: My friend who is running for council here in Aurora said that, as I predicted, Aurora Town Council actually approved this project. Now that they're against it shows that it's been purely politics.

Approved what part of the project? Was it in the plan that the developer could simply go in and indiscriminately level the woods?

[nicky10013]

Approved what part of the project? Was it in the plan that the developer could simply go in and indiscriminately level the woods?

Pretty much.

[Shwa]

Pretty much.

From the OP linked story:

The Town of Aurora has filed several charges against a development company and its two owners after claims that more than 100 trees were destroyed to make way for a golf course before it was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

The town says 118 trees, including ash, pine, cedar, maple and oak, were injured or destroyed in the area of Leslie St. and Bloomington Rd., without a permit.

I have underlined the pertinent phrases.

[nicky10013]

From the OP linked story:

I have underlined the pertinent phrases.

Being ignorant to the process, does the municipal board hand out permits or the town? I'd underling if I wasn't lazy, but no where in the OP does it say this project WASN'T approved by town council.

[charter.rights]

Being ignorant to the process, does the municipal board hand out permits or the town? I'd underling if I wasn't lazy, but no where in the OP does it say this project WASN'T approved by town council.

If the appellant is protesting a by-law under the Planning Act such as a Tree Cutting By-Law, then the OMB can substitute its approval for the municipality. However, if the issue is the approval of a development under a Site Plan Agreement process (a Planning Act procedure) then all they can do is deal with the matter at hand. The OMB must stay within the boundaries of the appeal.

If I'm not mistaken, Aurora's tree preservation by-law allows farmers or individual homeowners to clear cut for their own purposes. The problem lies in that if the land was zoned agricultural before the application for development, then the development company technically, is actually acting as a farmer. Chances are he will walk scot-free and I'm sure he knows this. Even if he is denied the application, the town would have to prosecute under their by-law. The courts rarely levy hefty fines for the worst of by-law infractions, so I suspect that the developer would see any fine as just the cost of doing business.

Lebovic is no stranger to controversy in the development realm....

Edited September 21, 2010 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

Being ignorant to the process, does the municipal board hand out permits or the town? I'd underling if I wasn't lazy, but no where in the OP does it say this project WASN'T approved by town council.

I see your cynicism: Council approved the development and it was submitted to the OMB. So the developer cleared out the land before the OMB decision and was called on it by someone on Council - likely for political reasons. Is that a fair assessment?

Edited September 21, 2010 by Shwa

[treehugger]

I planted trees over a planned golf course near Milton where the developer decided to start cutting without having his permits in order. He was required to have it all replanted, to the tune of around $100k or so I believe.

Way to go P. McGee, It looks good on them.I live east of you and the developers rule.

In my last house the province used to come and measure the Oaks, W.Pines and Walnut trees every other year or so. They were very old but healthy and many of them. When I sold and moved, The developers came in and cut down everything and nothing was said.