Current Conditions
4.0 C
Mostly Cloudy
Today's Forecast
3 C
Chance of showers
Sponsored by Highland Ford

News And Views




Shop Local

More Local

Search The Web

Google Search

Local News

Pointe Estates controversy reaches boiling point

Wednesday, January 23, 2013   by: Darren Taylor

We may not have heard the last about the controversial Pointe Estates subdivision project.

The Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation Authority, along with SSMRCA Board members, held its’ 2013 Annual General Meeting Tuesday.
The meeting included the selection of City Councillor Brian Watkins as Board Chair for 2013, and City Councillor Marchy Bruni as Vice Chair.
The meeting began with a call from Board member Frank Manzo, City Councillor for Ward Six, for the Board to rescind a December 13, 2012 decision by Board members, in a 3-2 recorded vote, to allow the Pointe Estates project to move forward for City Council’s consideration.
Outgoing Board Chair Ken Lamming told Manzo no such reversal can be made before 12 months have elapsed from the December 13, 2012 decision. 
That launched a series of angry comments from Manzo toward outgoing Board Chair Ken Lamming, and later, with incoming Board Chair Watkins.
Manzo has consistently and hotly contested the Board’s decision to go ahead with the proposed development, with claims that not only does the Board’s approval trample on provincial regulations, but also claims from Manzo that a conflict of interest exists between project developer Jeff Avery and former SSMRCA Board Chair Lamming, saying the two are related.
The 91-lot subdivision proposal, put forward by Avery, of Avery Construction, has caused Conservation Authority staff considerable concern in regards to the effect it may have on the quantity and quality of wetlands in the area of proposed development and surrounding residential areas.
Pointe Estates would involve a parcel of land bordered by Pointe Aux Pins Drive, Dalgleish Road, the St. Mary's River, Alagash Drive and Pointe Louise Drive.
It would cover more than 200 acres of land and consume about 100 acres of wetland.
Peter Gagnon and Rick Gartshore, residents of the area adjacent to the proposed development, were present at Tuesday’s meeting, along with lawyer Helen Scott.
Also in attendance was Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan-based hydro geologist Frank Breen, who penned a 540-page report for the Conservation Authority expressing environmental concerns about the Pointe Estates subdivision project.
Breen’s findings, in a December 2011 report, can be found on a concerned citizens’ website at
Breen spoke to after Tuesday’s meeting and told us that he is not for or against the Pointe Estates project, but that in his view the project poses potential risks for the area’s water supply.  He added he is not comfortable with the project going forward without a thorough hydro geological study.
Peter Gagnon told “there are 23 outstanding issues regarding the science that we have requested from the developer that has never been provided, but the Board still approved it.”
He added “there’s still a legal opportunity to challenge this, but that involves generating funds, so we have to make that decision.  The Board has not rescinded their decision because they have suggested they need 12 months before they can revisit it, but Robert’s Rules of Order (a parliamentary-style guide book used by Conservation Authorities, City Councils and many other governing groups) doesn’t say that.”
Gagnon said “the original Sault Ste. Marie Conservation Authority staff recommendation states that the development will cause the pollution of the upper aquifer.”
“As a result of the 91 septic systems that are going to be in there, there will be pollution of the upper aquifer plus pollution of the canal, which will then run down and pollute everyone that’s along the shore of Alagash, and basically pollute the upper St. Mary’s River.  It’ll cause E. coli and other sicknesses.”
Gagnon said “Mr. Avery was asked to counter that and do a study… he didn’t do that. He didn’t do enough well analysis to meet Ministry of Environment standards.  He didn’t do that, but the Board still passed it.”
Gagnon continued by stating “provincial regulations say there shall be no development in a wetland over two hectares in size.  This is a 45 hectare wetland that will be destroyed.”
Gagnon told us “we have retained Helen Scott as a lawyer to advise us in our options throughout this process because we are concerned, and we need legal advice to see what our options are.”
Scott told after Tuesday’s meeting she would not be proceeding with any legal action yet but said “I stand ready to represent the concerned residents, and I’m willing to proceed if they choose to instruct me to do so.”
Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.
PipeBomb 1/23/2013 8:32:44 AM Report

Prrrrrrr 1/23/2013 8:39:46 AM Report

Manzo knows...
Saultbie22 1/23/2013 8:44:22 AM Report

From what I understand from the last article about this issue, there was a study done by the developer that said that there would be sufficient water. And common sense tells me that the developer paid for this. Why are Gagnon and Gartshore not utilizing their own money to stop this, instead of the taxpayers' money? These two people are bankrupting the CA (funded by the tax payers) due to their intense NIMBYISM. If I were a developer in another part of the Sault, I'd get stuff passed STAT while the CA is busy trying to fight Gagnon and Gartshores' battle.

And the article states that their hydrogeologist is American? This can't be serious.
Grace 1/23/2013 8:46:21 AM Report

Give em' hell Frank..!
Time for the Ombudsmen to get involved!
Grace 1/23/2013 8:48:34 AM Report


Is it happening in your back yard?? No?
Then button it!
Lostclause 1/23/2013 9:02:51 AM Report

Robert's Rules of Order have a provision for rescinding a motion that had been passed by the board. Namely that the First(er) and Second(er) of the motion agree to rescind and put forth a motion to that effect. We agree to rescind the motion made on (insert date) in regards to (insert motion)..all in favor..etc.
appleman 1/23/2013 9:03:47 AM Report

How much money have Gagnon and Gartshore costed the tax payers on this? That is what I really want to know. These "activists" probably have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money fighting against this. I wouldn't doubt they are in the ears of every CA staff member and working together with them. How much did this 540 page report cost me, Mr. Breen?
Grace 1/23/2013 9:06:37 AM Report

"probably have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money"

Bold any proof?
Saultbie22 1/23/2013 9:07:06 AM Report

Hahaha no, Grace, you’re right that it’s not happening in my back yard. But when two people have their hands in the pockets of the Conservation Authority, who in turn have their hands in the pockets of the taxpayer, it gets me a little heated.

So I truly do thank you for your mature recommendation, but I – a taxpayer, and someone who wants to see SSM prosper - won’t be “buttoning it” on this issue.
hairry 1/23/2013 9:09:45 AM Report

as usual it all depends on who you are in this corrupt town, give em hell manzo
Grace 1/23/2013 9:13:38 AM Report

"But when two people have their hands in the pockets of the Conservation Authority, who in turn have their hands in the pockets of the taxpayer"

Are you making accusatiions? Just pointing a finger? Throwing crap? Got proof? Show it.
Be more specific.
arizonagryphon3 1/23/2013 9:19:17 AM Report

For your information, Mr. Gagnon and Mr Gartshore have put their own money into this. This is totally about who knows who in this town. If it were your property that was going to be destroyed you'd be upset too. Money talks in this city and it is amazing what gets overlooked when certain people strut their stuff. I hope this development goes down in flames. Good for Manzo. At least his speaks the truth, like him or not.
cliff76 1/23/2013 9:21:25 AM Report

Take the "Sunny Side" project and use it as an example and just look at how much wet lands were damaged to create that subdivision
Garty 1/23/2013 9:22:18 AM Report

Gagnon and Garthsore both have invested countless hours and money of their own. Why do you think the Conservation Authority exists? For this exact reason to ensure that the proper measures are taken, which they haven't been.
If there is no concern to the water or surrounding environment than why not have a full ecological study done if there is nothing to hide.
This has nothing to do with NIMBYISM, which you refer to on every one of these articles. It has to do with due diligence.
If the proper research is done and it is concluded to not be harmful, there will be no opposition.
This is about the science not personal feelings.
Garty 1/23/2013 9:25:57 AM Report

Appleman, the article by Breen cost you and the taxpayers absolutely nothing. The Pointes Association paid for it with their own money.
All these accusations of wasting tax payers money,, please show me where this has occured?
Should probably do some research before jumping to conclusions
Lostclause 1/23/2013 9:27:11 AM Report

Also if the board did not do it's due dilligence in regards to the recommendations put forth (23 outstanding) then those who voted in favor of the motion can be held liable (so long as the minute taker for the board noted who voted for and against the motion). The chair should not have had a vote unless it was a tie break situation.
Saultbie22 1/23/2013 9:32:43 AM Report

My proof is here: “Also in attendance was Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan-based hydro geologist Frank Breen, who penned a 540-page report for the Conservation Authority expressing environmental concerns about the Pointe Estates subdivision project.”

And here: “He [Gagnon] added “there’s still a legal opportunity to challenge this, but that involves generating funds, so we have to make that decision….”

These statements lead me to believe that they have not yet spent the money, and that Breen worked FOR the CA at the time that he did the study.

Prove me wrong.
Cashmier 1/23/2013 9:34:55 AM Report

I haven't really followed this issue, so maybe there is something missing from this article which is causing some to respond the way they are (i.e. they know something we don't know)... But overall, based on the article alone, I have to conclude that reading comprehension is lacking for many of you.

There must be something going on behind the scenes for the Conservation Authority Board to have given the project the go ahead when A) Environmental studies indicate it would cause significant damage for both environment and health and B) it does not meet legislative requirements. If this project does go ahead as it is, I would seriously suggest that the SSMCA be evaluated - because it will be blatantly clear that they aren't upholding the vision and values of the organization.
Ski-Dude 1/23/2013 9:38:34 AM Report

Way to go Garts and Manzo! When the dust settles on this one I'm sure it will either not go through or there will be an elaborate eco sensitive system for the site.
Grace 1/23/2013 9:39:04 AM Report

These statements lead me to believe that they have not yet spent the money, and that Breen worked FOR the CA at the time that he did the study.

What? Prove that all you know comes from just this article?
Saultbie22 1/23/2013 9:42:09 AM Report

Wow, Grace, really? What's your agenda here? I quoted the article areas that lead me to believe what I believe, and I asked you to prove me wrong. I'm not sure where you're coming from.
appleman 1/23/2013 9:47:38 AM Report


I assume your first name might just be Rick.

In the article it clearly states the CA paid for the study by Mr. Breen.

NIMBY? Where have you been for all the heated debates for other subdivisions? I have NEVER seen your name come up except for this one. Quick search and it seems both the men in this article may just have an interest in blocking something like this, because, *gasp*, it's in their back yard! NO WAY!

Personally Mr. Gartshore, I am against bureaucracy that blocks innovation and progress. I am not sure if you were ever in business or not, but man hours = money spent. How many hours have CA staff spent on this over 5-6 years? Now tell me, PROVE ME WRONG, that I am off by saying hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages have been spent fighting this personal battle.

The studies have been done, the CA voted. Let it go on to the next step.
Grace 1/23/2013 9:48:23 AM Report

No proved what I figured..
Grace 1/23/2013 9:50:34 AM Report

I guess you are what you read...
Garty 1/23/2013 9:58:01 AM Report

Again you go jumping to conclusions......My name is not Rick although I am related so thank you for the accusation without the facts.
Much like I know for a fact the Saultbie and others are related to the developer. Much like a member of the CA that voted is which is clearly a conflict of interest.
The Conservation Authority is there for the purpose of protecting ecosystems such as a wetland and this is a substantial one.
Again, everyone tries to make this personal which it isn't, it is about the science. If it is proven by a non bias investigation that it isn't harmful than go ahead and do the development. Due diligence.
appleman 1/23/2013 10:16:22 AM Report

@Garty, I was close enough then.

The studies have been done. The meetings held. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Gagnon's 23 "concerns" are his own. The developer has proved time and time again that the project will work. It's been said on SooToday many times that the wetlands are NOT significant. What makes it so special that you would spend your own money fighting for it?

What I am against is special interests having the ear of our government in "authorities" that get in the way of progress. This city is going no where fast with people like Manzo in office blocking innovation, I'm sure if he was around in politics he would have voted against the international bridge or steel mill if he could have.
Grace 1/23/2013 10:41:20 AM Report

Is not a developer a "special interest"?

Please clarify.
appleman 1/23/2013 10:48:18 AM Report


You seem very cryptic in your responses...

The special interests I am referring to are people with an agenda, who are fighting for a specific "cause". In this case, NIMBY proponents disguised as environmentalists.
Snowdon 1/23/2013 10:50:47 AM Report


Where does it say the CA paid for the study? Please quote directly if you can.
appleman 1/23/2013 10:57:00 AM Report

Hey @Snowdon

Here in the article (on this page):

"Also in attendance was Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan-based hydro geologist Frank Breen, who penned a 540-page report for the Conservation Authority expressing environmental concerns about the Pointe Estates subdivision project."

And also on the Pointes Website:
"Read the Sault Ste Marie Region Conservation Authority 3rd Party Technical Opinion - Breen Hydrogeological Study Dec 26, 2011"

And in the study itself:
Grump 1/23/2013 11:15:14 AM Report

I hate to break many balloons but the Sault is full of Nimbys that complain about everything and pay for nothing. Tony Ruscio's developement of his golf course into homes. The Rail/truck yard on the highway at 6'th line and now the Point Estates. These have/will pass at the OMB and we will hear the moaning . Frank has served long and well but the knife in that drawer is no longer very sharp. Never mind the employment and the material sales these developments will bring, how about the added approx 3/4 of a million dollars a year in tax revenue. The folks in these areas have had a long private run but it's now time to develop them. If they truly wanted this much privacy they should have pooled their resources and bought the property next to them. The difference it that now it would be them tryng to develop it.
Resident 1/23/2013 11:18:23 AM Report

I'll never understand why "developers" have to destroy the most beautiful and important (environmentally) land. Oh, silly me, MONEY, GREED, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLOWED! Then the people who try to stop them are ridiculed. Nice.
travelingman 1/23/2013 11:23:16 AM Report

The CA is definitely fighting a personal battle for these individuals. The proposed development does not meet any guidelines for a provincially significant wetland. I invite anyone to do what some of us have; that is to actually walk the property. I walked this so called wetland in my running shoes and went home with dry feet after. This is only about the "not in my backyard" just like any other major development that ever takes place in this backwards city. No we don't want a Walmart or a Future Shop or a Home Depot. They scare you and make up stories about all the problems the area will have if the development goes through and it's all bullshit. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent that all show this to be a proper development that meets Provincial guidelines and the NIMBY's are still at it wasting your tax dollars and mine. This development is good for both the city and the area and yes it is in my backyard too. I fully support this development and am tired of all the false accusations being made by Gartshore,Gagnon and their gang.
Nimrod 1/23/2013 11:25:03 AM Report

In such matters all that matters is MONEY! And the Averys has lots of it!! It shall pass.
travelingman 1/23/2013 11:29:20 AM Report

Resident: where do you live, in a tent somewhere in the bush or do you actually live in a house like the rest of us where someone built a subdivision and houses and people wanted to buy them and moved in. Are you greedy? We are talking about building houses here and if there is not a demand and nobody wants to live there then the lots won't get sold and there will be no development and the guy will go bust. There's nothing greedy about building houses for people to live in. More of the bullshit.
Snowdon 1/23/2013 11:31:25 AM Report


Can you point out where it says he was PAID for his work?

If you cannot, then don't harp on about it, because professionals in many different fields often devote their time, skills, and effort for free for projects that are of interest or that they care about and to help out. That may be happening here, and since we don't know it is unfair to criticize.
Jitterbug 1/23/2013 11:32:25 AM Report

People ,Your worried about septics?Theres 500 million tons of slag next to the river!
Koolaid 1/23/2013 11:34:27 AM Report

Mabye they should put real Common sense Councilors in office and deal with this situation with common sense.
appleman 1/23/2013 11:40:56 AM Report


Would you write a 540 page report out of the kindness of your heart? Probably not.
firefly42 1/23/2013 1:52:02 PM Report

I'm with Manzo! It is definately a conflict of interest. The Conservation Authority is supposed to protect the environment but they clearly ignored the reports and recommendations when they passed this. For those of you that are complaining about the tax dollars spent, sometimes spending money to fight for the environment and what is right, is worth it. Just MY opinion.
Resident 1/23/2013 1:53:44 PM Report

traveling man: Yes I live in a house but not a subdivision. What is wrong with limiting development (destruction) of SENSITIVE areas to protect our water and indiginous flaura and fauna?
Resident 1/23/2013 1:57:01 PM Report

Jitterbug: The slag is a problem also. The industry should have to remove it but...
steelworker 1/23/2013 2:17:45 PM Report

Maybe we should get some "Idle No More" protesters out there.
prgee 1/23/2013 2:48:31 PM Report

CA Staff Report April 6, 2010
Should the Sault Ste Marie Conservation Authority Board be willing to allow the elimination of the wetland despite staff recommendations based on regulation 176/06 “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses” and the associated policies, the SSMRCA should only advance the application if the following information is submitted, evaluated and determined to qualify for consideration of an applicable permit.
a.Agency agreement that adverse conditions have been adequately addressed or acceptably controlled by the developer including those related to a recommended average water exchange of once every three days.

This has not been addressed.

b.A hydrogeological/hydrological assessment report to be prepared to address
i.The shallow and deeper aquifer water quantity and quality, the proven ability of the aquifers to sustain the proposed development and the anticipated interference with other wells in the area.
The shallow aquifer has never been addressed aside from stating that it was highly susceptible to contamination and the study of the deeper aquifer was not done to the satisfaction of the SSMRCA engineer.
ii.The movement of groundwater and surface water through the present wetland to better assess the hydrologic features.

This has not been done

iii. Impact of the development on the groundwater and surface water regimes from sewage disposal facilities once the development is in place
This has not been done
iv. An assessment of the ground water supply serving the existing homes in the area of the development (in both shallow and deep wells)

This has not been done

v. The upstream impact of water drainage on airport domestic and firefighter supplies and other upstream wells

This has not been done

vi. A representative soil assessment across the wetland area to assess the presence of organic material which may pose a hazard for anticipated home construction.

This has not been done

c. Develop the criteria related to monitoring, assessment, financing and implementation of the mitigative solution(s) for the canal.

This has not been done assessment of the implications of solar heating of the water in the canal from a biological and chemical perspective.

This has not been done

e.Provide an indication of suitable implementation of the recommendations or comments put forward by both the Department of Fishery and Oceans and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

This has not been done

f.Design and submit for assessment a storm water management system to remove an average of 70% of the solids discharging to the St. Mary’s River from the development indicating the outfall locations and storm flows anticipated.

This has not been done

g.Provide a determination of the anticipated groundwater drainage including water management that will occur through the canal for assessment of flows, thermal accumulation in the canal and containment flushing/ saturation.

This has not been done

Breen Technical Opinion Dec. 26, 2011 and Presentation Sept. 2011
Hydrogeological Study at a minimum needs to
•Define nature and extent of clay
•Demonstrate complete attenuation of septic tank effluent
•Demonstrate no effluent discharge to canal
The hydrogeologic assessment should clearly identify and address all potential impacts to residential wells or surface waters in the area. This was confirmed in the December 13 Board meeting minutes.

None of the above was done.

Frank Breen is an independent professional hydrogeologist and geochemist retained by the SSMRCA to assess this development. He concluded ``The hydraulic modeling conducted by the Point Estates Development Group does not meet the permitting requirements and cannot be considered valid scientific evidence for the development application``.

This is not a NIMBY issue but one that has so many unanswered questions and such a high risk of environmental damage, that until someone can demonstrate that the upper aquifer and the upper St. Mary's River won't be polluted, we shouldn't allow it to go ahead. We're in the 21st century folks and the earth could use some help!
Jenks 1/23/2013 3:23:01 PM Report

This development is a terrible idea. The Alagash is already pretty stagnant and polluted. A huge, dead-end canal in this area can only be filthy. I hope for the sake of us all, this won't go ahead, but if it does, anyone who buys a property will be up to their ears in e-coli and feces a few years down the road. Frank Breen is an American, but so what? His credentials speak for themselves, and he's a valid, unbiased source.
fenderman 1/23/2013 3:56:12 PM Report

As a former resident of that area, all I can say is if you took the time to see the beauty in the land and wildlife that exists in that particular proposed development area, all would understand why it is worth protecting.
Deer, moose, wolves, rabbits, cranes, etc. all live there and only 20 minutes from the center of a large city. Just too much to sacrifice. They should make it a wildlife sanctuary instead of a housing development in my opinion.
travelingman 1/23/2013 4:35:17 PM Report

If you live in the area then you know that 20 minutes from this city deer, moose, wolves, rabbits and cranes, etc... can be found everywhere. It's a beautiful town and a beautiful area but with that mentality nothing should ever be developed. We should just let it all go back to nature. This is about a private individual spending his own money on his own property and everybody else wanting to have a say in what someone else should do with their property. You want another park? Write a cheque. If these people are so greedy I'm sure they will take your money and let you run your park however you want to once you've invested your own money in the property. There is nothing any more special or beautiful about this particular piece of property than any other property that has already been developed in the city. Our airport, lots and lots of houses, businesses, two major campgrounds and RV parks were all developed and located in this area already and yet these deer, moose, wolves, rabbits and cranes all still live in the area. Why is it that this one development is the big bad one that is going to chase all the wildlife away? Every developed area I know of in this city that borders near some bush still has all these animals coming through and bears too!
Saultbie22 1/23/2013 4:43:51 PM Report

Haha yes, fenderman, because everyone loves a wolf in their back yard. I agree with travelingman. Cut a cheque and create your sanctuary. While you're at it, restore the land where are those homes are now back to its original wetland beauty. I'd like to see gartshore and gagnon give their property back to nature.
Resident 1/23/2013 6:56:58 PM Report

Why do we have to have all or nothing? Why can't some areas be left natural? ESPECIALLLY sensitive areas!
Resident 1/23/2013 6:57:44 PM Report

And how dare animals such as wolves be allowed to live!
riverman 1/23/2013 7:06:10 PM Report


It is obvious that there is not a rebuttal in existence that will make you consider any opinion other than your own on this issue. It is also obvious that you have a very personal grudge against Messers Gangnon and Gartshore in this regard. Allowing your personal feelings to cloud the issue and stop you from even considering other points of view and legitimate concerns is no better than having a NIMBY attitude which you so vehemently inist is at play here.

Of course these families are fighting for the well-being of their neighbourhood. They have concerns for the quality of life to which they and generations before them have enjoyed in the vicinty of Pointe Aux Pins, Pointe Louise, Pointe des Chenes, Sunnyside and Gros Cap. I believe that, despite their convictions, these gentlemen would accept a loss in this matter if the necessary questions were answered and all environmental concerns satifactorily adressed. From the manner in which you write I highly doubt you would take a loss on your side as graciously.

I applaud Rick, Peter and the others involved for the work they are doing to protect Pointe Louise and Pointe Aux Pins from this development until such time as all necessary environmental assessments have been done and critical answers provided.

The argument that the residents of Pointe Louise and Pointe aux Pins are standing in the way of progress and economic development is premature. At this juncture, all that can be said without prejudice is that they are defending the environment. Further, the suggestion that, because we as a nation continue to rape and pillage the environment in the name of progress and the almighty dollar, we should not care about the environmental questions that remain unanswered regarding the Pointe Estate for many of us is simply unacceptable.

I had the pleasure of working in Sarnia two years ago where there is a beautiful development similar to what I imagine Jeff is proposing for the Pointe Estates: luxury condos and townhouses each with their own docks for their yachts all built on a man-made lagoon which connects to a marina and the river. I often thought as I passed by how nice such a complex would be in the Sault. As much as I would hate to see that area of Pointe aux Pins and Pointe Louise cleared out for development (and, yes, believe it or not there are people in this world who LIKE having wolves, coyotes, bears, skunks, porcupines, deer, moose, fox, rabbits, and all manner of birds inhabiting their "neighbourhood"), if he got the all-clear from the necessary governing bodies I would hope that Jeff's development is as well-designed and functional as the one in Sarnia. I just hope they have water. They're already having to drill well past 200 feet for new wells at the Pointe. That's a far cry from the 80 foot wells we had when I lived out there decades ago.

riverman 1/23/2013 7:31:28 PM Report

@ travellingman:

"This is about a private individual spending his own money on his own property and everybody else wanting to have a say in what someone else should do with their property."

Says you. I say it is about people who are concerned about the unanswered questions regarding the direct effects this development will have on the environment.

And who is the arbiter who gets to decide when enough is enough? At what point does someone--anyone--get to say, "Enough is enough. Enough runway parks and RV parks and subdivisions and million dollar homes crammed onto 80 foot lots?" Why are you any more entitled to dictate how far these economically friendly/environmentally deleterious developments should be allowed to advance than the proponents of the opposite viewpoint are entitled to voice their concern and protect what THEY care about: the environment surrounding their homes as opposed to the profit of a neighbour whose priority is his financial investment and who snubs his nose at their concerns.

Perhaps if Jeff had performed due diligence regarding ALL the environmental concerns of the Pointe Estates BEFORE buying up those properties he wouldn't be facing the prospect of being stuck with a failed development. I do not wish that for him at all, but we reap what we sow. (How's that for an environmental analogy?)
Resident 1/23/2013 7:47:49 PM Report

riverman: Well said!!
duck hunter 1/23/2013 10:22:31 PM Report

Do not destroy another wet land they clean our water provied classrooms for our young and its a place of beauty right here in our city futhermore if its about money promote what you want to destroy I am sure eco tourists wouldn't mind paying for access to such a beatiful place

Think I will send Ducks unlimited a e-mail about these wet lands
Resident 1/23/2013 10:26:17 PM Report

Good idea duck hunter! Good luck. You never know.
duck hunter 1/23/2013 10:35:41 PM Report

If Mr Avery makes it a sanctuary he can get his money back with a tax break. Or he could sell it to Ducks Unlimitted or Delta or some other organization like that.
Resident 1/24/2013 11:42:54 AM Report

Do you think he would be nice enough to do that?
littlejoe 1/24/2013 9:42:07 PM Report

"Think about it"

(1) over a million in revenue for city each year

(2) will be beautifull

(3) put Sault Ste Marie on the map

(4) jobe creation and cash flow for the community

(5)high taxes in this subdivision will help keep city taxes down

(6) Does Frank Manzo know the meaning of beautifull?
littlejoe 1/24/2013 10:05:14 PM Report

"Don't put the cart before the horse"

All the necessary studies will be required in the subdivision agreement after councill gives the go ahead.

I do not see a problem with septic systems as the lots are large.

With today's technology you could pretty well drink the water that is disbursted from a septic bed.

Americans have been doing these canals for years without problems.

Bottom line is if those two neighbors what to leave everything as is they could have purchased the land.

Resident 1/24/2013 10:16:05 PM Report

It will be beautiful? If your idea of beautiful is destruction! That seems to be what would happen. The environmental studies should be done BEFORE the "development" to be proactive in preventing destruction.
Resident 1/24/2013 10:18:07 PM Report

The two neighbours don't want to see the area destroyed. How terrible of them!
JTN1325 1/24/2013 10:34:35 PM Report

Aquifer and ground water contamination????? Mr Manzo is worried about ground water contamination??? I would look in your own yard Mr Manzo before ever questioning what a reputable developer like Mr Avery is proposing. Lets get some development going and build our city. People want homes let's get the ball rolling. I am sure Mr Avery's development sure wouldn't be an eyesoar driving by like some homes in the area.............lets grow and not remain stagnant...
Resident 1/24/2013 10:56:17 PM Report

The water aquifer(sp) shouldn't be protected because "Manzo" should look in his own back yard? The environmental studies are done to protect our water. Mr. Avery should have no problem with that since he is so reputable!
Resident 1/25/2013 9:48:08 AM Report

Let's grow responsibly and not stagnate/pollute the water and protect our environment.
Jeduah47 1/28/2013 10:22:00 AM Report

Mr. Breen's website states he is a U.S. citizen but a permanent resident of Canada. All of his contact information on his website is listed as being in Sault, Michigan. Does he have a business license to practice here? I also searched the internet (APGO - Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario) and it appears that Frank Breen is not registered to practice in Ontario. Why aren't the parties involved using an Ontario hydrogeologist?
Big specks no wammies 3/11/2013 11:10:09 AM Report

Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.
Advertising | Membership | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About | Contact Us | Feedback

Copyright ©2014 - All rights reserved