canadadude Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 If the developer is in violation of site restrictions this matter should be brought to the MNR, MOE. These Ministries can shut down the developement and heavy fines can and probably will be leveled against the developer. If Buffer zones were ignored the adjacent property owner may be in position to form a lawsuit. Your colalition should really consult with a lawyer if violations your describing are occuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 this subject reminded me of a song! what would you do if G.E. Smith tried to move in next door to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv89ZH6XfVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutologist Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 The fact you claim that a wetland was bulldozed and filled is suspcious. There would need to be site visits and inventories. Not to mentioned the red tape that goes along with the new Species at Risk Legislation. This usually precludes the development of wetlands. There will need to be very publicly available documentation that the MNR, MOE and local conservation authority (if there is one_ has checked this out and provided the appropriate permits. These are all public documents. Ask for these if you suspect wrong doing. Though it does happen I would be very shocked if a developer (in a controversial case nonetheless) ignored the permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Ranger Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 THANK YOU!! This is what I need to hear! My claims are absolutely true, as I called the Ministries to see if there was any permit issued, or a study conducted. Negative on both accounts. The representative in our area has advised that he personally should have been contacted prior to the construction and dozing through the wetlands. A couple of biologists did come to the site after the marsh was filled in, but failed to report any sightings of SAR on the day they came. I feel that had they had time and were actually notified to inspect the property prior to any development, things would be different. What recourse do I have other than finding one of these animals myself? I have seen Least Bitterns and Blanding Turtles in this marsh, but have no proof at this time. I'll make a point of taking my camera for the future. Thank you once again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutologist Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 MNR has a sightings database of SAR. Usually if SAR are known to inhabit watercourses connected and within a certain distance of the area in question a full scale assessment is required. It seems as though a permit was issued if stipulations were discussed re buffer zone. Wherever this permit was from, there should have been contact with the township or planning board and the MNR/MOE/CA in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadadude Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 THANK YOU!! This is what I need to hear! My claims are absolutely true, as I called the Ministries to see if there was any permit issued, or a study conducted. Negative on both accounts. The representative in our area has advised that he personally should have been contacted prior to the construction and dozing through the wetlands. A couple of biologists did come to the site after the marsh was filled in, but failed to report any sightings of SAR on the day they came. I feel that had they had time and were actually notified to inspect the property prior to any development, things would be different. What recourse do I have other than finding one of these animals myself? I have seen Least Bitterns and Blanding Turtles in this marsh, but have no proof at this time. I'll make a point of taking my camera for the future.Thank you once again! I know it's late but the S.A.R card should have been played at the planning stage of the development, if evidence of a S.A.R would have been given at this stage the developement would have been stopped in it's tracks. Studies would have had to be conducted and no development would continue untill a viable alternative to protect such species was in place. It may to late at this particular time in the development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishermccann Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Quote from your website "In a generation of 'Green' it is unthinkable that it would be acceptable to commercialize this RURAL area and change forever what we have respected and loved our entire lives." I thought you didnt have a problem with the development just the disregard for the buffer zone? ?? You had me till I read your website IMO its more about how this will affect YOU and your NIEGHBOURS peace and quiet than the lake. Great way to play the GREEN CARD ,that seems to pull at everyones heartstrings latley and get you heard.What better place to sell your sad story but to a bunch of sportsman who are always willing to save there sport Sorry I may be way off track but it just doesnt sound like we are getting the whole story Sorry but I have to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Ranger Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Thanks to all who have some substantial and sound advice. All our letters of concern for the S.A.R. directed to the Municipality seemed to be of little concern at first. We wer pratically laughed at. We finally hired a planner who knows political lingo and jargon to speak on our behalf, who happens to work very closely with the Ministries. During our meetings with City Council, it was determined that the studies by appropriate Ministries were to be conducted PRIOR to any development to determine the natural values of the land and S.A.R. I also had letters and direction from a local author from the West Nipissing Naturalist Club on how to present our arguements concerning the S.A.R. With all our opposition and facts and research and everything we presented to council to prove that this area was in fact the WRONG place for such a development, we managed to have restrictions incorporated into the zoning amendment and began to feel somewhat satisfied, as we figured the Ministries would discover that this was indeed a marsh that needed protection. So, with this, plus all the other restrictions put in place for the special zoning of this property, we decided collectively as a group to not appeal Council's decision to pass the application. Since the day it was approved, there has been NO permits applied for or granted by any of the Ministries that were to be contacted. I personally have been in correspondence with the representatives of the area and it seems that the developers and the city were able to somehow re-word the amendments or overlook or sidestep or turn a blind eye to what is actually been happening. So. Now what? I am now taking the advice of a number of members of this forum and seeking legal advice. I am also submitting our facts and photographs and documentation, including the zoning restrictions to the media. I am also giving the planning department time to reply to my letters addressing the fact that the violations have occurred, and if I get no reply, we will hire a lawyer to sue the developers and the City. We trusted the City to do their job to keep this in check. We've been lied to, and the developer was supposed to get a survey to establish a buffer zone BEFORE dozing down the trees. Not AFTER. After asking a rep at the city why this happened, they told me that the developer was waiting until they could AFFORD a suryvey. OOPS! Caught'cha! Wait for it, watch for it, this is going to be on CBC soon enough. This is not a NIMBY thing. Maybe in the beginning it all touched us emotionally, as we knew this place would never be the same with this type of development. There's no way I can say I wasnt' upset or angry. Basically, we were stunned that this development would even be a consideration, given the type of land, the size of the lot and the size of the lake. However, I am genuinely concerned, for the wildife, the fish, the forest, the marsh, you name it. We've tryed to play the game right, of course made some mistakes along the way, but we're learning and once I (we) stop this development, we'll know the appropriate procedures on how to prevent the next one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I am having a hard time following this as the thread goes on you reveal more and more information and much of what people suggest you have already done including going to the media , I could be wrong but it's like we are being drawn into this, piece by piece, but it has all be played out.... maybe I am just reading too much into the way the info has been regurgitated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUSTER Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I am having a hard time following thisas the thread goes on you reveal more and more information and much of what people suggest you have already done including going to the media , I could be wrong but it's like we are being drawn into this, piece by piece, but it has all be played out.... maybe I am just reading too much into the way the info has been regurgitated Iam with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishermccann Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 DITTO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lostchild Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 "Our concern is the lake is landlocked, and excessvie boat traffic and fishing will definately have a negative impact on the lake and the fish. There is no stocking of fish in this lake. The shore where the developers plan on having a boat launch is a breeding and feeding area for pike. The lake is mostly 'marsh' and actually is a river, not a lake." I am with Terry also. It was first stated that this was a landlocked lake, then it was mostly a marsh, but now also a river. ???????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehg Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 You sound well versed with the details of this situation and the members here have been quite helpful. Hopefully this will work out for you. If it all goes through you still have not much to worry about as long as you have great trailer park supervisors such as these.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Ranger Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I'm lovin' this..only my second day and already I've created a 'hot topic'! Thanks everyone, there's alot of fun people here, and again, I do appreciate all the great advice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish4Eyes Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 The advice on here given is great, but as a public servant myself, I would recommend you get a lawyer and MOE to settle this dispute. Before any development/construction project is to be undertaken, an environmental assessment has to be done first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now