Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

What is the Downside of Not Fighting Westhill?

Posted by auroracitizen on July 21, 2010

Out of the chaff being spread between Mr. Poppe and other posters including yours truly, I did find one grain of wheat that might do with some clarification.

Guy Poppe responded to my earlier post regarding Westhill.

“If you think it is expensive to fight legal battles (brought by others) wait until you find out the cost of having to remedy water issues for neighboring properties.

The Town has a choice: ensure proper water and sewage resources from the developer or face further litigation for negligent approval.”

If I’m reading correctly, GP believes the Mayor’s ‘spend now-save later’ strategy is an example of far-sighted wisdom. ie; Aurora should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill a previously approved development because said development MAY damage the water and sewage works of neighbouring properties and IF that damage occurs Aurora MIGHT be on the hook for the costs of repairs and POSSIBLE litigation.

Since most of us seem to have the more cynical view that this is simply a case of blatant pandering to a special interest group perhaps our more informed readers/posters could enlighten us (at a See Spot Run level please) on the consequences of the worst case scenario.

If it all goes wrong as some fear is Aurora actually left holding the bag?

What about Westhill? the Region? the Province?

Tim the Enchanter

2 Responses to “What is the Downside of Not Fighting Westhill?”

  1. evelyn.buck said

    The decision will not be made by the town. The O.M.B. an arm’s length body with authority granted by the Province will do it.

    The appeal is based on failure of the municipality to make a decision within legislated time limits. But added to that since the Appeal was filed is the refusal to approve.

    The failure to make the decision was due to various aspects of the application which needed to be proven to the town.Certain documentation
    considered necessary had not been provided.

    The onus was on the applicant to provide the edocumentation to support the application.

    When an application for development is made , the region and both conservation authorities’ are required to comment. .

    That was done pior to the Public Planning Meeting in January 18th 2008

    The documentation was voluminous.The application got a pass from those agencies.

    There are a number of these developments in the Region Beacon Hall in Aurora is one. . I believe it may be twenty years old.I think it may even be within the Moraine.

    The developer, we are told, have agreed to sign an agreement with the Region, to accept liability for the sewage treatment system proposed.

    The town still has outstanding concerns .

    They will be articulated at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

    The developer will have the opportunity to respond .

    The opposing residents will also have an opportunity to put forward their concerns.

    Of course, since the town has taken on their lawyer and their witnesses at taxpayers’ expense, they may not even have to bother. Except for appearances of course.

    In the end, the Board will make a decision based on all the evidence presented.

    Unfortunately it will not happen until after the election. Mayor Morris will be able to continue her charade of a crusade. Residents will have to make up their own minds about the facts and why hundreds of thousands of their tax dollars had to be spent before the Hearing even got started

    If earlier figures provided by the town’s lawyer Mr. Beaman are still correct, the cost of the hearing will not likely be less than $1.4 million dollars.

    Dear God, I have a hard time believing that even as I write it.

    Readers should keep in ind, I am not presenting these facts as a staff person.

    As a Councillor, I listen and try to understand. The above is my understanding of the facts.

    • Guy Poppe said

      To Tim the Enchanter.

      Thank you for response. I’ve have perused clr. Buck’s response.
      I do not note anything in response to my concerns and your question.

      Perhaps you can clarify.

      Guy L. Poppe

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: