Conservation Board going to court over Pointe Estates nod
Wednesday, March 20, 2013 by: Darren Taylor
The Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation Authority (SSMRCA) now faces legal action over the Conservation Authority Board’s approval of the proposed Pointe Estates subdivision development.
Sault Ste. Marie lawyer Helen Scott handed legal documents to Conservation Board Chair Brian Watkins at Tuesday’s Board meeting.
Scott represents the Pointes Protection Association, a group of concerned residents who live near the proposed Pointe Estates development area.
Approximately 20 people, comprised of Pointes Protection Association members and other members of the public, crammed the Conservation Authority Board’s office to attend Tuesday’s meeting.
Watkins did not allow Scott or members of the Pointes Protection Association to address the Board at Tuesday’s meeting, stating the Pointe Estates matter was not on the meeting’s agenda.
“For one reason or another the Board doesn’t want this association, or myself as their legal representative, speaking at their public meetings,” Scott told SooToday.com.
Watkins told reporters he had no comment after the meeting concluded.
A motion by Board member Frank Manzo at Tuesday’s meeting to rescind the Board’s December 13, 2012 vote, which approved sending the Pointe Estates development matter to City Council for further consideration, was not allowed to be tabled by Watkins.
Board member Ken Lamming has also repeatedly claimed that the December 13, 2012 vote cannot be rescinded before a 12-month period has passed.
Opponents have questioned that claim.
Scott told us “my understanding is that’s not accurate in terms of rescinding the decision.”
The Conservation Authority Board voted December 13, 2012, in a 3-2 recorded vote, in favour of forwarding the Pointe Estates development to City Council for further consideration.
That vote came in spite of considerable opposition, based on environmental concerns voiced by residents who live near the proposed Pointe Estates subdivision, environmental experts, and Conservation Authority staff.
Opponents say the development would harm the quality and quantity of the water for residents who live adjacent to the proposed Pointe Estates development area.
Voting in favour of the Point Estates development at the December 13, 2012 meeting were then-Board Chair Ken Lamming, Brian Watkins and then-Board member Ozzie Grandinetti. Board members Frank Manzo and Marchy Bruni voted against.
Scott told SooToday.com the purpose of the legal action is "to review the resolutions that were passed December 13, 2012 to permit this development and the the evidence that was submitted in support of that application".
“Our argument is that the evidence that was submitted in favour of the development (environmental tests done on behalf of Pointe Estates developer Jeff Avery) was not sufficient.”
Scott continued “(The Board) is supposed to ensure certain things will not be negatively impacted. They didn’t do that. Conservation Authority staff had a lot of concerns that have not been addressed.”
Scott pointed to an independent 540-page report prepared for the Conservation Authority by Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan-based hydro geologist Frank Breen, which expressed environmental concerns about the proposed development.
“Frank Breen did a lengthy independent technical opinion, which raised substantial concerns that have not been addressed,” Scott said.
The legal papers filed in court by Scott in Sault Ste. Marie Tuesday, copies of which were given by Scott to Watkins, state the Conservation Authority Board’s Resolutions #103/12 and #104/12 on December 13, 2012 “are illegal and invalid,” running contrary to the Conservation Authorities Act, and Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, as amended under the Conservation Authorities Act.
The documents state that the Board “exceeded its jurisdiction by passing Resolution #103/12 and Resolution #104/12 with no reasonable evidence to support its decision.”
Scott told us she will be contacting all parties involved in the matter, including the developer, City staff and the Conservation Authority, insisting “a decision (regarding the development) be made on sound science.”
The controversial discussions regarding Point Estates also continue to be mired in confusion on the part of Conservation Board members in regards to legalities.
Board members Brian Watkins, Ken Lamming, Marchy Bruni and Joe Krmpotich approved a motion Tuesday for the Board to seek independent legal counsel as to proper procedure in dealing with Board matters.
Frank Manzo abstained.
“I think they need legal counsel,” Scott told us.
“They should have sought that three months ago.”
Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of SooToday.com. Keep discussions civil and on topic. Refrain from obscenity and don't post anything that your grandmother would be ashamed to read. Those who do not abide by these guidelines will have their membership revoked without notice. If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.
JustMe1234567 3/20/2013 8:41:00 AM ReportHelen Scott - you go girrrl!
This whole thing stinks.
Grace 3/20/2013 8:48:20 AM ReportBRAVO!!!!!
Standing ovation!!!
Ski-Dude 3/20/2013 9:03:10 AM ReportGreat job!
cleanfreak 3/20/2013 9:37:38 AM Reporttime to give CTV W5 a call
Job Developer 3/20/2013 9:41:06 AM ReportIs it any wonder why developers avoid this city like the plaque. This developer has spent huge sums of money on studies and research, lives in the area, as does his family and is the most ethical business person I have ever encountered. Other developers see the grief we put people through and look elsewhere. Let it move forward to council and let the developement decision be made there.
Big specks no wammies 3/20/2013 9:44:58 AM ReportBRYAN WATKINS... WHAT CAN I SAY, I would expect nothing else from the president of the local PC party...How embarrassing!
His continuous lies and misleading statements regarding Roberts Rules are only shadowed by the blatant "ulterior motives"$$$ that are perpetuating him and the board into legal hot water.
This has nothing to do with NIMBY's and all to do with science, water quality and yes bill C-45. Downloading responsibilities and TRUST to those that whore( misuse) their fiduciary duties and elected postings appear to be a growing trend in Canadian politics. Avery's hydro-g test failed miserably even though it only addressed 1 of 35 concerns and recommendations from 3rd party experts. Here is were the arrogance of Watkins shines through his shadow of deceit and incompetence. after 50 years of being on the CA board Frank Manzo stated that last nights meeting " is the worst meeting " he has ever seen. Someone should call for the resignation of this folly.
Big specks no wammies 3/20/2013 9:57:59 AM Report@job developer
ethical??? dare I mention the paper mill and the $30+ million government hand shake and the hundreds if workers that got f#@$#D. don't get me started..
There is only one reason why people like you are blind enough to voice such a predictable song like 'LET IT GO TO THE COUNCIL' Legal capabilities of the CA outweigh the city Council. Nice try, Perhaps you and "the best man for the job" share this wish, but it ain't gunna jell brother!!!
northernmale 3/20/2013 11:26:50 AM ReportI think one of the first things should be looked at to see if there is any conflict of intrest with Ken Lamming and the Avery family, also why destroy wetlands to build on. Is there not enough vacant land around with out doing this? Soon we will see no wildlife look at how many difrent birds and animals we seldom see anymore.
right wing 3/20/2013 11:49:52 AM ReportBig speck.
Why don't you call for the resignation.
You seem to believe you have all the issues sewn up, know it all, and are judge, jury and executioner on this matter so go public and call for it.
proutlj 3/20/2013 1:19:15 PM ReportExcellent work Ms. Scott!
slynx33 3/20/2013 2:26:24 PM Report"None are so blind as those that will not see"
Very prophetic words.
I am sure the intent of the pointes committee is not
to deprive the developer from from making his tons
of money but to try to protect the enviroment and
the local wells.
Reflect back to the early nineties after the new
landfill was developed.
Residents of the fifth line and old goulais bay road area
suddenly had contaminated wells.
The city never admitted it was the landfill seepage.
But suddenly installed a pump house for the area
and brought in city water at the cost to the residents
of around $2500.00.
That was twenty some years ago, wonder
what the cost would be now?
Think of ninety one (91) septic tank and fields
seeping into the local area, wells,beaches and
upper Saint mary's river and eventually to the Soo.
May the die hard for progress be the first to
receive this effluent gift, when the developer will
point out the mistletoe attached to his shirt tails.
openminded13 3/20/2013 3:00:57 PM ReportThis is an excellent update on the Pointes Estates situation - thanks Darren for the coverage!
As for @Job Developer, I'm highly skeptical of your use of the term 'ethical' to describe the developer. I'm fairly certain that developers likely avoid the Sault because the market is saturated and the population is in decline, not because they have difficulty getting their proposed developments approved. If anything, it has been too easy. If the developer had done his due diligence and had the appropriate and adequate hydrogeological studies prepared to prove that this development would not impact the water quality and quantity in the area then your point could have substance, but the fact of the matter is no matter what "sums of money" he has put forth, they have not been put towards proving that this development will not turn into the ecological disaster that we all know it will be. Instead these 'huge sums of money' have gone to lining the pockets of those who will take his side, ie. the members serving on the Conservation Board who actually voted this through. That is why they are going to court, to prove that they did not have substantial evidence to approve this development. If it were to move forward to council, we would likely see a similar outcome since money makes the world go round and we all know the developer has enough cash and connections to make sure that Council approves it. That is not justice though. It's difficult in a corrupt little town like SSM to ensure that justice is upheld... Now it is up to the Court to make the appropriate decision. Keeping my fingers crossed for Helen Smith and the Pointes Estates crew!
Big specks no wammies 3/20/2013 4:16:41 PM ReportLINEING THE POCKETS OF THE CONSERVATION BOARDWITH MONEY? IN THIS TOWN? NO, SAY IT ISEN'T TRUE!! THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN "THE SOO" LOOKS LIKE THE CA BOARD WILL BE EXEMPLIFYING "SOO" great work Point protection. Your actions, convictions and professionalism are exemplary, GO HELLEN SCOTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Terry718 3/20/2013 8:25:20 PM ReportRYTAC west...maybe
openminded13 3/20/2013 9:16:58 PM ReportApologies all, I meant Helen Scott* and the Pointes Protection* crew!! Wishing them best of luck with this fight...
Big specks no wammies 3/21/2013 9:22:06 AM ReportBryan Watkins... He demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to the importance of a lawyer for the CA. Oh, Wait a minute, He dismissed the lawyer right before this mess began. He then stated at the last meeting that the dismissal of the CA Lawyer "has nothing to do with this meeting" This is after Marchie and Joe expressed their concerns and requested legal opinion... He then suggested that Prince Township look after legal matters of the CA. WOW!!!! Home of Sir Lamming. WATKINS IS RUNNING FOR THE PC PARTY,. I CAN NOT WAIT!!!
firefly42 3/21/2013 6:59:44 PM ReportWay to stand your ground Pointes Protection Association! Good Luck in Court!
Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of SooToday.com. Keep discussions civil and on topic. Refrain from obscenity and don't post anything that your grandmother would be ashamed to read. Those who do not abide by these guidelines will have their membership revoked without notice. If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.
