Countdown is on for future of Beeton Woods
What lies ahead for Beeton Woods wildlife like this
Red-headed Woodpecker, feeding young?
-Jennifer Howard photo
Residents raise issue of what evidence county council is allowed to receive
By Kate Harries AWARE News Network
Concerned Citizens of New Tecumseth have sent Simcoe County Clerk Brenda Clark a letter for county councillors, who will resume deliberations Tuesday May 12 into the stop work order that halted clearing of the Beeton Woods.
However, the residents have been advised by the clerk and county lawyer Marshall Green that county councillors will receive no new information to inform discussion at Tuesday’s hearing, as they will base their decision solely on evidence submitted to and arguments made on the first day of the hearing, April 14.
But residents were also told that councillors will receive letters (conveying new evidence) from lawyer Ian Rowe, who represents the development company that owns the property. (Scroll to end for links to Rowe letters and other documents referenced in the residents’ letter).
One of the issues raised at the hearing is whether Maria Rizzardo, whose name was on the application to Simcoe County for a Special Permit to clearcut the forest, is the owner of the property; that is dealt with at length in Rowe’s letter – apparently to be added to the evidence that councillors will consider.
His position is rebutted in the residents’ letter – but in a parody of legal process, the information they bring forward is apparently not to be communicated to councillors (who, with the exception of New Tec’s mayor and deputy mayor, are not allowed to discuss the matter with anyone except each other, nor, presumably, to read this post. Rick Milne and Jamie Smith are the only county councillors not to participate in the hearing because, as the Town has taken a position demanding the stop work order, they cannot be considered impartial. The county’s process permits them to inform themselves and discuss Beeton Woods with all and sundry).
The matter of whose name is on what document is a technicality, but technicalities are what we use to assure ourselves everything’s done right, and Simcoe County has played fast and loose on technicalities, starting with the failure to notify nearby property owners and continuing with its failure to enforce the stop work order, which did not in fact stop all work, as stated on the order, but allowed the ongoing “clean up” of “legally felled trees” (when it’s whether the trees were in fact legally felled that is an issue to be decided by the hearing).
The technicality at issue now is whether councillors are allowed to hear new evidence presented by the residents, or whether only new evidence from the property owner will be permitted.
In one letter, for instance, Rowe advises county councillors of the April 29 decision by Tecumseth Estates to withdraw its Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendment application for a development attached to its 9th Line property in Beeton that was filed with New Tecumseth in 2003 (confirmed as active in 2008). An “active” planning application gave weight to questions about whether farming was the true goal behind the Special Permit application, and was a key element of the Town of New Tecumseth’s argument against the clearcutting at the April 14 hearing. Also, the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority was not advised of the existence of the application. Had that happened, the easier rules that are designed for a farmer wanting to clear a woodlot for agriculture would not apply. More stringent Environmental Protection standards would come into play if the woods (ranked EP1 and EP2 in New Tec’s Official Plan) were being cleared for development, and flora and fauna studies would have been required.
“If Tecumseth Estates is allowed to bring forward NEW information and actions, we would appreciate answers/consideration be given to our OLD information/questions from the hearing,” Beeton resident Carolyn Milne advised Simcoe County’s clerk in an email May 8. “We truly have a problem with the way this process is being handled and will address this after May 12, 2015.”
AWARE Simcoe’s submission to the April 14 hearing urged council to add the property to the Simcoe County Forest, as an amenity for Beeton residents, and to maintain an important natural link in the fragmented landscape of South Simcoe. Councillors have the option of lifting the stop work order and confirming the permit that has been given with or without conditions, or lifting the stop work order and cancelling the permit.
Letter to the County of Simcoe from Concerned Citizens of New Tecumseth
To whom it may concern:
Further to the Special Permit Hearing on April 14, 2015 we wish to clarify some matters that arose from questions that Members of Council had.
While we appreciate that Ms. Rizzardo is apparently the sole shareholder of a “company” that owns all of the shares of Tecumseth Estates Inc., the name of that company has not been forthcoming. We enclose for your review a copy of the Corporate Profile Report of Tecumseth Estates Inc., which incidentally and as of March 3, 2015 has not filed an Annual Corporate Return since September 1, 2012. From this Corporate Profile Report, it appears that the President/Officer of Tecumseth Estates is Diego Rizzardo, Parisio Rizzardo is listed as a Director/Secretary and Claudio Rizzardo is listed as a Director/Officer. I would point out that Maria Rizzardo’s name does not appear anywhere on this document and in the section where it lists “Current Names Exist”, the Profile indicates “No”. Pasqualina and Parisio appear to be completely different people. From a review of the Parcel Register, once again we would point out that Maria Rizzardo in her capacity does not appear to be a signing officer of Tecumseth Estates, nor does the name of this “company” that owns all of the shares of Tecumseth Estates appear. Perhaps counsel for Tecumseth Estates could provide the name of the “company” and the Corporate Profile Report and/or filed documentation to substantiate that it in fact is the company that “owns” Tecumseth Estates. We would respectfully ask that County’s lawyer review this interpretation as I would think that the “company” that owns Tecumseth Estates would have been the company that should have completed the Application for Special Permit. On the outset it appears that the ownership appears to be like an onion that needs to be peeled back a little further. Perhaps this should be reviewed by County’s lawyer to verifiy and clear up the ambiguity around this. We also enclose a complete title search including transfer documentation for the properties.
While it appears that Tecumseth Estates has withdrawn its application for development and/or rezoning, there has been no confirmation that this “company” that owns the shares in Tecumseth Estates has also withdrawn any applications it may have outstanding, if it in fact has one on the table.
Again we would point out that it is not just Town Council that was opposed to Special Permit No. 5635. The abutting landowners and residents of the Town of Beeton were also opposed to the permit allowing the cutting of the trees on the subject property. There were numerous concerns and questions which to date have not been addressed to the satisfaction of the abutting landowners and residents. In fact, counsel for Tecumseth Estates has pointedly gone out of his way to ignore the concerns of the citizens of this town. He has failed to recognize the importance of some of the other issues. This is a copy of an email sent my Tecumseth Estate’s Council to the presenters at the hearing.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear Ms. Milne:
I have spoken to Mr. Rizzardo concerning the opportunity of settling the appeal prior to the decision by County Council on May 12, 2015.
We feel that the best opportunity to resolve the matter would be with respect to negotiations between ourselves and the Town given the relationship of the issue with other development issues of Town has raised. It would also be our expectation that the Town would consider the interests of your group any such negotiations.
Therefore, we have contacted Mr. Feehely’s office and intend to proceed with negotiating directly with the Town through their counsel.
Regards,
Ian Rowe
______________________
Ian Rowe, Counsel
To date, we have met with our local Councillor a number of times but have not been given an opportunity to meet with our other elected officials or the above mentioned Mr. Feehely to share the information within this communication.
Further to our concerns, any bird studies/nesting studies that should be undertaken with regard to potential Species at Risk, are optimally done in the early spring, i.e. late March, early April. We can confirm from a review of the EIS report that these bird studies were not done. Nor were any flora or fauna studies done or soil samples taken. As well, there has not been any inquiries into dust particles/air quality testing once the natural barrier that the trees provide have been removed.
In speaking with the Nottawasaga Valley Conversation Authority (“NVCA”) concerning bird studies, they did not make it their consideration or jurisdiction and pointed out that inquiries surrounding such studies should be made with Environment Canada. In an email exchange with the NVCA, regarding studies, concerns were brought up as follows:
“Can you confirm whether migratory bird studies were done in this area, nesting studies, rare bird studies, frog and snapping turtle studies and the effect on them with the potential of flooding, excess watershed and the disruption of their habitat…and who gets to witness year and after year the abundance of these species and their regular patterns in their natural habitat, I am curious as to whether this was addressed…and whether these studies are something the NVCA takes into account when reviewing these assessment and requests.”
NVCA’s response was as follows:
“Migratory Birds: In regards to migratory birds, please note that Environment Canada is responsible for implementing the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, which provides for the protection of migratory birds through the Migratory Birds Regulations and the Migratory Birds Sanctuary Regulations. In general, we understand that the intent is to avoid detrimental effects to migratory birds and their nests and eggs. This can include carrying out projects outside of the nesting and breeding periods, which for this area typically occurs between mid-April and late July. For more information please consult Environment Canada’s website
Counsel for Tecumseth Estates has not addressed concerns surrounding the Archaeological Studies that should be undertaken prior to the removal of any trees.
Further, the concerns regarding potential increased flooding risk and silt run off to the Beeton Creek have not been addressed from the eastern bush that has already been cut down. No EIS has been done of the other forested areas at this time and it is unknown if butternuts also exist in these areas or if any significant features need to be addressed, i.e. adjacent wetlands.
The issue of Mr. Smalley leasing the land is new information and needs to be confirmed as there are questions regarding this gentleman’s health and where he is currently living and the landowner could make an agreement to farm the obviously neglected land that is already cleared.
Please also review a separate submission regarding Town of New Tecumseth’s By-Law 123 “Development Application – Tree Preservation and Compensation By-Law”.
Since some of these issues were of interest to County Council and may be considered relevant, we would ask that you provide to County Council a copy of this letter and attachments.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Concerned citizens of New Tecumseth
Dated: May 8, 2015
Documents
Corporate profile of Tecumseth Estates
Corporate profile of Rizzardo Bros
Ian Rowe – New Tecumseth – April 29
Ian Rowe – County of Simcoe – April 29, 2015
Ian Rowe – County of Simcoe – May 4, 2015
Leave a Reply