New Tec votes not to appeal Beeton Woods decision
Council votes against appealing County decision
New Tecumseth Fress Press Online
New Tecumseth councillors voted last night against launching an appeal of the May 12th decision by Simcoe County council that lifted a stop work order and reinstated a special permit granted to Tecumseth Estates (Rizzardo) to clear approximately 30 acres of woodlot from its 9th Line property in Beeton.
The decision is to be ratified in council next week. The appeal period expires June 12. However, those people who participated in the April hearing can initiate their own appeal.
Last night, councillors heard a final plea for help from two Beeton residents, including former councillor Barb Huson, who suggested that while private property was in play, there are many examples of how municipalities control it.
“We have a fence bylaw, property standards, open air burn bylaws, sign bylaws, fill bylaws, and others that all regulate what can be done on a piece of private property. We also have site alteration zoning, tree preservation bylaw and an official paln that says this particular piece of property has two environmentally protected forests on it,” said Ms. Huson. “You can and you do regulate private properties. The only bearing it has on this issue is no trespassing signs have gone up and residents can no longer walk on the trails in the forest. Second point I keep hearing is this is a County issue. In every instance that I can think of, the County looks to the municipality for their input. These woodlots should have been protected under the policies this municipality has in place.”
Ms. Huson said Tecumseth Estates is a developer, and its 9th Line property, which is zoned agricultural and rented to a local farmer, “only until they get approval to build houses.”
“But through a loophole across the province, developers are making applications to alter woodlots and wetlands under policies that are supposed to apply only to agricultural operations. And in doing so, they do an end run around the obligations they would have to satisfy normally with a development application. The County is permitting an end run around New Tecumseth’s planning process by permitting this tree cutting.”
The other speaker, Stephanie MacLellan, said they had photographic evidence of the vote count by County council, which conflicted with the 18-9 stated result. Ms. MacLellan also noted that two county councillors who were absent from the April hearing, showed up to vote on May 12, noting jurors couldn’t miss a trial, then vote on a verdict. And, most glaring, she said, was the County accepting evidence from Tecumseth Estates after the hearing closed, that announced they had closed the development application file, which was one of the “flaws” she highlighted as reasons why the Town needed to appeal the decision.
“This is not about a developer, it’s not about property rights, it’s not even about the trees anymore. It’s about right and wrong,” said Ms. MacLellan. “Everything that happened here from the beginning, was wrong. The people of New Tecumseth, the people you represent, have been mistreated. The County has been covering up their mistakes and continuing to make one mistake after another.”
She also refernced Town solicitor Jay Feehely’s legal opinion to council that the prospects for winning an appeal were “very small”and in the best case, a new hearing, would likely end with the same results.
“The Town solicitor wants to make it out to be a lost cause, with no chance of winning with a huge price tag of $50,000 for a possible appeal. It sounds like a lot to spend,” Ms. MacLellan said. “Let’s compare it to the almost $1 million lost from the tree preservation bylaw.”
Ward 3 councillor Paul Whiteside said it was wrong to suggest the Town had not been supportive of the Beeton residents’ cause.
“I get very concerned when residents say we haven’t cooperated or contributed to it. We’ve incurred $12,000 in costs, taxpayers dollars,” said Mr. Whiteside. “This is a County issue. We have no jurisidiction over a forest cutting that size. We have very slim chance of winning an appeal, which could be as high as $50,000, and if we were not successful in an appeal, we could be assessed the cost of the other party.”
Ward 6 councillor Richard Norcross moved a multi-part motion that issued an ultimatum to Tecumseth Estates which asked them to cease any further tree removal, and instead replace it with a best forestry management practice, and submit to it by the June 8th council meeting. Failing that, the Town would appeal.
But Ward 4 councillor Fran Sainsbury suggested splitting it up in two.
“If you’re going to go in good faith to try and mediate and negotiate with owners of that property, then that’s what you do, you don’t put a threat in that motion that you’re going to appeal if they don’t do what you want them to do,” said Ms. Sainsbury. “And either we separate it and do it in two parts, or vote on it and see where it goes.”
Mr. Norcross did not accept the amendment, and lost the vote.
New Tecumseth won’t appeal Simcoe County decision on Beeton forest
New Tecumseth won’t attempt to overturn a recent decision by Simcoe County council to allow tree cutting to continue at the Tecumseth Estates property in Beeton.
The decision made by council to not seek an appeal follows the advice of the town solicitor Jay Feehely, who said doing so would likely be a waste of time and money.
In order for the town to move ahead with an appeal, he said the town would need to prove that the county tribunal made a mistake, but would have a hard time doing so.
“It would be very difficult to establish that the Tribunal erred in its decision,” he wrote in a report, adding that the decision can be supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.
While the town could try to seek a judicial review, he doesn’t believe this will work either.
With the development applications no longer in place, Feehely said the town would have trouble arguing why the stop work order should be reinstated.
“Even if a new hearing is ordered, we will unlikely be successful before the Tribunal,” he wrote.
The hearings, which took place in April and May, were held to review the approval process that led to the landowner being granted a special permit under the county’s forest conservation bylaw to clear about 30 acres of mature trees from the 9th Line property to expand an existing agricultural operation.
The landowner, the Rizzardo family, was granted a special permit by county council in January to remove the trees, but the permit was suspended March 3 after the town requested an investigation into the application approval process.
The stop work order was lifted following the second hearing May 14.
A number of Beeton residents attended Monday’s committee of the whole meeting to pressure council to continue the fight, including Stephanie MacLellan, who believes the hearing wasn’t fair.
“There was lots of process flaws,” she told council during her deputation.
MacLellan believes the property owner’s lawyer shouldn’t have been allowed to submit three additional letters after the initial hearing was held. She also questioned why two county councillors who didn’t attend the initial hearing were allowed to vote on the matter at the final hearing.
Ward 3 Coun. Paul Whiteside doesn’t share these concerns.
“When I hear that the county system was flawed, we have received in writing from the county that their system was not flawed,” he said.
Whiteside said the town has incurred about $12,000 in legal costs since the review process started.
He believes it would be irresponsible to spend more money at this stage, noting how any further legal action could cost the town up to $50,000.
“It’s a county issue, they’ve dealt with it, and our solicitor has indicated there is a very, very slim chance of winning an appeal,” he said.
MacLellan said the residents group is now considering launching their own appeal.
Anyone who participated in the hearing has the right to file an appeal, according to Feehely.
Council will vote on whether to ratify this decision at next week’s regular meeting.
The deadline for anyone to file an appeal to Simcoe County is June 12.
Leave a Reply