Weather

Current Conditions
7.2 C
Mist
Today's Forecast
13 C
Periods of drizzle or rain
Sponsored by Highland Ford

News And Views

Classifieds

Announcements

Entertainment

Shop Local

More Local

Search The Web

Google Search

Local News

Pointe Estates matter to be heard in November

Tuesday, March 11, 2014   by: Darren Taylor

Those in favour and those opposed to the Pointe Estates subdivision proposal, and their representatives, gathered at the Sault Ste. Marie Civic Centre’s Council Chambers Tuesday morning for an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) pre-hearing.

OMB representative Blair Taylor, of Toronto, presided over the pre-hearing.

Taylor stated that no testimony would be heard, or a decision made, at Tuesday’s pre-hearing.

At the end of Tuesday’s 90-minute pre-hearing, it was determined by the OMB that the full OMB hearing will commence Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 10 a.m.

The exact location of the hearing is yet to be determined, but city solicitor Nuala Kenny suggested it would possibly take place at the Civic Centre.

The hearing is expected to last three weeks.

The pre-hearing’s purpose was to identify who will be taking part in November’s hearing and to clearly determine what issues will be thrashed out at that time.

That information is to be finalized and delivered to the OMB in April.

Those in attendance and in favour of the Pointe Estates subdivision proposal included Sault contractor and developer Jeff Avery, Amanda Avery and Sault lawyer Orlando Rosa, representing Jeff Avery.

Those in attendance and opposed included Pointes Protection Association (PPA) President Peter Gagnon, planning consultant Anthony Usher, hydro geologist Frank Breen and Klaas Oswald of the St. Marys River Bi-National Public Advisory Council (or, St. Marys River BPAC).

Kenny was in attendance on behalf of the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Rosa stated to Taylor that BPAC’s involvement concerned him, asserting that BPAC, unlike the PPA, is not an incorporated body and had no direct interest in the proceedings.

Rosa later added that he feared BPAC’s involvement would tie up the OMB hearing as to whether the Pointe Estates area is a significant wetland.

The Ontario government does not officially classify the Pointe Estates Area as significant wetlands, however, opponents insist the proposed subdivision would permanently damage the quantity and quality of the water supply in the area.

Rosa also pointed out that the St. Marys River BPAC is a joint Canada-U.S. body, with its office located in Michigan.

BPAC’s Klaas Oswald was asked by the OMB’s representative to justify BPAC’s involvement.

To that, Oswald stated his group, a recognized advisory body to jurisdictions on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border, has long been interested in an ongoing remedial action plan for the St. Marys River, which has been identified as an “area of concern” affected by pollution, erosion and loss of wildlife and fish as a result of planned developments between Gros Cap and St. Joseph Island.

The St. Marys River BPAC will in fact take part in November's OMB hearing.

Several weeks will be taken up before November’s hearing to compile a witness list (including the areas of expertise of each witness), witness statements, participant statements, meetings in which experts will prepare their data, and to compile visual evidence.

For several years, Jeff Avery has wished to establish Pointe Estates, a 91-lot subdivision on land south of Pointe Aux Pins Drive, west of Dalgleish Road, north of Alagash Drive and Pointe Louise Drive.

In December 2012, the Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation Authority (SSMRCA) Board, in a 3-2 recorded vote, approved the proposed subdivision.

That decision was challenged by a group of concerned residents, mostly from Pointe Louise Drive (known collectively as the Pointes Protection Association, or PPA) and the matter was taken to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Sudbury by Sault lawyer Helen Scott and the PPA in spring 2013.

In October 2013, SooToday.com was informed by Scott: “They (the parties involved) have basically come to an agreement to end the matter” at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice level.

Prior to that, the Pointe Estates matter was brought to City Council by Avery, the PPA and their respective representatives, and despite a City staff report’s recommendation for approval for the Pointe Estates subdivision, City Council rejected it by a recorded vote of 7-4 at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

Subsequently, Avery proceeded to appeal the matter to the OMB.

 

Comments
28
Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of SooToday.com. If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.
sAUCEY 3/11/2014 2:21:07 PM Report

why won't anyone let this happen, better property and better homes,, bring in better people to this town.. Everyone wants low income this and that, but nobody wants crime. Now I'm not stating the two go hand in hand all the time, but when the shoe fits...
sootodayreader 3/11/2014 2:28:09 PM Report

Approve it
devilsadvocate 3/11/2014 2:29:37 PM Report

I live at "the pointe" and as long as this development doesnt negatively impact my beach/waterfront I say go ahead. From what I've heard, however, it appears they can't make that guarantee.
roba 3/11/2014 2:32:50 PM Report

sAUCEY - ? "bring in better people".............well excuuse me.
sAUCEY 3/11/2014 2:38:21 PM Report

yes, better people, Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses, Business owners.. The Soo (as much as i love it) has sadly become a sess pool, 20 years ago you never saw needles in the playgrounds and parks,, ladies walking up and down gore, murders... if we want a better twon we need better people, better homes and subdivisons attract that. all low income does is put a band aid on the problem, why strive to get better when the governement is going to pay your way..
Norm 3/11/2014 2:42:07 PM Report

Does saucey mean rich people?
Anyway, as long as it doesn't
harm the water or land, better
to make way for advancement.
ThinkAgain 3/11/2014 2:44:13 PM Report

Orlando has a conflict of interest, he has water front property, he only wants the value to go up.
Beej 3/11/2014 2:50:15 PM Report

N I M B Y is the biggest issue there.
Gurpy 3/11/2014 2:57:00 PM Report

saucey
Low income and crime do not always go together. My PERSONAL experience has been to keep my eyes peeled with the ones who have money! Got ripped off by someone with a few bucks long time ago! He knew he`d never be suspected. Took a few years before I caught on! But, I did catch on!
sinikka 3/11/2014 3:02:38 PM Report

i have a big problem with the NIMBY group. They have been able to prolong this soap opera forever. These people that don't want this development in their area can move. I did not want a subdivision behind me either but it happened anyway. Many of these so called opponents have made this personal against avery . Now people know why very few developers are willing to spend their money in the soo. Good luck to the avery's . The majority of the soo is behind this project but the nimby have all the power.
David Poluck 3/11/2014 3:04:28 PM Report

I would like to see this entire OMB hearing televised.
It would be good for the public to see how the process works.


David Poluck 3/11/2014 3:16:57 PM Report

I personally dislike the term "NIMBY"
All taxpaying land owners have a right under the law to object in a matter of planning.

When you object and go to the OMB for a ruling the emotion of the argument will not be a factor..just the rule of laws and the facts presented.
Everybody involved on either side will need their ducks all lined up!

Verbatim 3/11/2014 3:33:08 PM Report

i make a very valid point about the rich always getting what they want...stating that the one percenters are starting to be judge just like the jews and communists and all other non conforming germans of the 30's and 40's and they remove my post. It wasnt hate mongering..it wasnt a racist statement yet they remove my comment. My guess is maybe someone on sootoday might be associated with the development. It just amazes me some of the comments that the moderators leave on here but when you speak actual fact they decide to remove it
Verbatim 3/11/2014 3:37:24 PM Report

I must apoligize this is not the same news feed as the one i had commented on earlier. They did not remove my post from that news feed. Once again my apoligies
guard1 3/11/2014 4:09:25 PM Report

Another poor decsion by council to turn it down against the recommendation of planning staff to approve it. Yea lets vote it down and send it to OMB for them to decide. Do they realize the tax revenue that they said no to with that vote? I am sure they do, they just do not care about easing the load on the taxpayer. Time for change in this years election.
travelingman 3/11/2014 4:36:15 PM Report

This is the most backwards city hall that I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing! We are going to spend three weeks of time, money and resources that we can ill afford to fight a development that they know will get approved to appease a hand full of residents that don't have a clue! It's a great idea at a great time and being developed with private money that will be fantastic for our city. Instead we waste millions of dollars chasing economic development that has no interest in coming here and try and chase away our own local developers that already believe and have a vested stake in our city! Half the people in city hall have to be brain dead to still be fighting this until the bitter approval.
guard1 3/11/2014 7:41:42 PM Report

Travelingman, its understandable of the frustration that you feel but the reponsibility for turning this down lays squarely on city council. Council too often goes against planning staff recommendations. We must remember they turned down the Queensgate subdivion. Imagine the revenue that would of brought in. Then they decided to keep funding the Norgoma against planning staff recommendations virtually snuffing out plans to develop the marina where the Norgoma sits for cruise boats visits. Though how quick they are to vote for tax inreases year after. This year we will see them vote in another increase. We need change in this council.
Wisenheimer 3/11/2014 10:46:37 PM Report

Too bad Charles Bronson has passed on. Council could lure him to the Soo to make another "Death Wish" sequel.
Big specks no wammies 3/11/2014 11:50:21 PM Report

Doctors moving into the subdivision?? Are you kidding me?!?! I lived beside Dr. Walde when he lived on Nokomis Beach in the 90's. The COMMUTE DID NOT WORK IT IS TOO FAR FOR THEM TO TRAVEL WHEN THEY ARE ON CALL DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!! As for the revenue!! That is all these folks at city hall see is the revenue from taxes. As the golden club gets bigger, the trough must stay full for the pigs to eat. We are seen as sources of revenue for the city NOTHING ELSE. I hope Avery gets his ass handed to him and Rosa? Nice try in the attempt of silencing BPAC, His goons are clueless as proof of their ignorance regarding "no wake zone" in the St Marys River, Water flush fron the tidal wake is a pipe dreem that my 6 year old even laughs at. And then you have Bryan Watkins, who Falsified Parliamentary procedure on Jan 22 2013 (12 month wait to overturn Dec 13 2013 decision). Then hired Piciocco and paid hin over $35,000,00 for 4 meetings to have the Jan 22 2013 minutes of the meeting omit deception that stopped a Manzo resolution to overturn the Dec 13 2013 decision. WATKINS AND LAMMING should not be trusted. He deceived the board and ignored SSMRCA professionals. Watkins also showed bias in his sstatement that homes would look good there and told me he walked te property with the developer. 2 CONDUCT VIOLATIONS. Bryan Watkins appears to be so far up Averys ass he can not see daylight
Big specks no wammies 3/11/2014 11:52:27 PM Report

Doctors moving into the subdivision?? Are you kidding me?!?! I lived beside Dr. Walde when he lived on Nokomis Beach in the 90's. The COMMUTE DID NOT WORK IT IS TOO FAR FOR THEM TO TRAVEL WHEN THEY ARE ON CALL DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!! As for the revenue!! That is all these folks at city hall see is the revenue from taxes. As the golden club gets bigger, the trough must stay full for the pigs to eat. We are seen as sources of revenue for the city NOTHING ELSE. I hope Avery gets his ass handed to him and Rosa? Nice try in the attempt of silencing BPAC, His goons are clueless as proof of their ignorance regarding "no wake zone" in the St Marys River, Water flush fron the tidal wake is a pipe dreem that my 6 year old even laughs at. And then you have Bryan Watkins, who Falsified Parliamentary procedure on Jan 22 2013 (12 month wait to overturn Dec 13 2013 decision). Then hired Piciocco and paid hin over $35,000,00 for 4 meetings to have the Jan 22 2013 minutes of the meeting omit deception that stopped a Manzo resolution to overturn the Dec 13 2013 decision. WATKINS AND LAMMING should not be trusted. He deceived the board and ignored SSMRCA professionals. Watkins also showed bias in his sstatement that homes would look good there and told me he walked te property with the developer. 2 CONDUCT VIOLATIONS. Bryan Watkins appears to be so far up Averys' rear end he can not see daylight
Sam The Dog 3/12/2014 8:02:39 AM Report

Bottom Line is; Avery would not build this if there was no sale of this type of lots. Simple solution is to talk people out of buying in this area, or is that simple? (Supply & Demand)
Big specks no wammies 3/12/2014 9:16:59 AM Report

House Insurance in a flood plane!!! BAHAHAHAH Goooood luck there suckers. One way moat with no water circulation with well and septic?? mmm Can't you just smell it!!! Avery has been lied to by a bunch of goons determined to suck more cash out of him, ( I thought he was smarter than this) The hired "professional" he hired is relying on, are you ready for this?... The waves from ships to circulate over 90 million gallons of water around 2 90 deg. turns and up 2.5 KM of dead end canal.He then forgot about one very important fact . A NO WAKE ZONE IN THE ST MARYS RIVER... DUUUU! The half wits on council that voted in favour of this scenario should be embarrassed
SLV1931 3/12/2014 10:19:29 AM Report

Good Luck Avery! I hope this project goes through. I think it will add alot of value to SSM and showcase SSM's natural beauty and waterway system. Avery does great work and they would make this into a picture perfect estate--I am sure of it.
1982 3/12/2014 7:16:24 PM Report

The Avery family isn't even rich.
opinionated 3/12/2014 9:08:43 PM Report

Hey Big Specks,

This "no wake" thing you talk about simply means the boats can't go cruising through at top speed. A 1000 footer will make wake no matter how slow it goes, and they always do (ask anyone who lives out there, there's always a "wave" after a boat passes and in that wave there's a large amount of water being moved.


I'm no scientist and neither are you but we can both see with our eyes...

Go see for yourself this summer, on public land, the causeway that the Alagash begins at (which is partly man made to begin with, by the way). Stand on the roadway and watch the water going through the culvert as a boat passes. It goes in, and back out. LOTS of it. The Alagash is a dead end, so this flow isn't from any other source.

The water out there in that bay regularly fluctuates a foot or more, another thing that can be observed first hand, as the boats go by.

I suggest before you create this idea in your head that this is BS, you actually go watch it in action first. You don't need to be a scientist to put two and two together when you see it.



As for all the other arguments going on, to each his own. I'm just saying, this wake thing does have merit (as far fetched as it may sound to someone who hasn't seen it), as does the rest of this project as far as I'm concerned.
leamington 3/13/2014 1:10:53 AM Report

try this somewhere else, remember what goes around comes around
Joseph2 3/13/2014 9:28:37 AM Report

I am concerned about a few things about this project, and get tiered reading comments from those who do not know what they are talking about.

Opinionated.
"1 foot rise regularly"? I don't think so!
Every time a ship goes by, the wake made displaces water mostly vertically in a very small area around the ship and displaces very little water horizontally.
One would have to wait a very long time to see water fluctuate more than a few inches; Lucky to see the water fluctuate more than a foot in a month, unless there is a strong wind shift from the Northwest. The water along the shoreline might go up and down a foot on a shallow beach, but not in height. A foot in height would be sending people running for the bush at Nokomis Beach every time a ship goes by.
Yes you are correct that you can see the water go in and out of the narrow culvert after a ship goes by, but the key word is "narrow". If the opening was 40' wide you would hardly notice it, and by the time the water does turn around, it has not reached more than a few 100 metres into the existing Allagash, leaving the upper Allagash water stagnant. See how far a fire hose will send water if the nozzle had 10X the diameter with the same amount of water. Picture the opening to the channel more than 10X the size and imagine a channel that is more than 2X the width and 2X the length. How much actual flushing will get done.

Sinikka,
People out there are not getting personal against Avery. He "can" be a nice guy, but he does make wrong choices and this is one of them. He is just being a bully and will not stop until he gets his own way. And he can keep on bullying because he has the money to keep on going, and they (Pointes Protection Association) do not, and he knows that. So he will keep bullying. Sad, isn't it?
You say "most of the Soo is behind this". I believe they are only behind this if they do not know all the facts, and think that the developer does.

Saucey,

"bring in better people"?
Well, better people are usually smarter people. And smarter people will make smarter decisions, this project is not one of them. They will see that this project is/will be a disaster and will not be attracted to the Soo because of making poor decisions.

devils advocate,
Agree with you. I am not against it (the development) if it will not have an impact on water front and beaches. But it WILL!
Just the initial dredging and the ongoing dredging that will be required, will have a continuous impact. Also the extra boat traffic along the shoreline, and the contaminants in the water, etc. will all have a great impact.

People opposed to the project are not NIMBY's. They are people who have concerns about saving important wet lands that seem to be disappearing into the pockets of those who already have big pockets.
Avery Construction, who builds roads, should know that roads and houses cannot be built on soft , wet land without having problems down the road. Who is going to pay for the cost of repairing these mistakes? Not the developer, the tax payers of course. Now who's ahead? Now has the extra tax income been worth it? NO!

City hall has already made the correct decision. Not to give the go ahead.
Now who is costing the tax payers to pay for the appeal process? The Developer, that's who!

Enough already.
Lets put this to sleep.
SAVE the WET LANDS.
Ehcadroj 6/16/2014 1:58:02 PM Report

The "pointe" is: this estate development is poorly designed from nearly every perspective imaginable, only in the light of short-term economics does it make sense, and look how well the USA has fared with short-term planning in real estate.

What is left is a poor attempt at Avery to create for himself a legacy; although, there will be a significant and negative legacy created by Avery should the current design go through.

There are those arguing against the development of the wetland, period. There are those arguing against an atrocious design. There are those arguing against Avery's hubris. There are those who just don't want change. There are many reasons to argue against Avery.

But who is arguing for Avery's development of this site as it is currently designed; where are these rich and educated to which Avery has slated for attraction? Only the lawyers and engineers whom Avery employs seem to be the only proponents of this development.

It's the gigantic watery phallus that Avery wants to carve into the shores of the St. Mary's River that all parties can agree is what this fight is about.
Comments
28
Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of SooToday.com. If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.
Advertising | Membership | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About SooToday.com | Contact Us | Feedback

Copyright ©2014 SooToday.com - All rights reserved