City Council and Ramsey Lake
Glenn’s
Rant
Well
another 4 ½ hours spent in Council Chambers at TDS. Again, it was a planning
meeting but this time there was no joy to be found at least among those friends
and fellow travellers that I tend to hang out with, metaphorically speaking.
I
was there for two reasons. One was regarding all those solar plant plans for
which seem to have suddenly showed up all over Valley East. Those in the know,
mostly by accident, and who have expressed their disapproval not about solar
energy per se but of the locations they seemed to be planned for. With all the
possible sites that most of us could agree that would be appropriate, most
chosen were judged by us to be inappropriate. Ruining a beautiful forested wet
land where species at risk were known to reside, another right up against two
of Ward 5’s largest sub-divisions, and another on a land that could be
considered ideal for development sometime in the distant future are three
examples.
The
subject was widely discussed amongst the Planning Committee Members and as well
as our two Valley East Councillors, both of who were in there swinging on our
behalf. Nobody was happy with the process dictated by the Wynne Government and
the worst part of the whole thing is no matter what anybody says, those
installers of solar farms are able to rough shod over everybody. No doubt about
it, more direct action will need to be done by the citizens of Greater Sudbury.
Today it may be the ‘Valley’, tomorrow it could be in your back yard.
And
speaking about your back yard, if your back yard is anywhere the university be
prepared to be bombarded with heavy trucks and earth moving equipment, as it
would appear that there is no legal way the proposed development on Keast can
be stopped. The city is requesting some more changes to the developer’s
original plan, which, if the developer does agree, will probably go ahead. If
the developer does not agree then he will probably go to the OMB.
While
the Planning Committee did all they apparently could to protect Lake Ramsey
from the ills emanating from said development I could see no way any of this
could happen, other than by the goodness of the developer’s heart.
We’ve
talked about a water shed study for years and even when the previous council
did agree on having one, nothing happened, which kind of identifies that
dysfunctional bunch pretty accurately I must say. So now we have budgeted a
measly $ ¼ Million per year for this very important issue and while it is
acknowledged by most everyone knowledgeable in this area that this is a lake in
trouble, we seem to have to be stuck in a place by a set of rules made before
even this day of short-sighted environmental enlightenment.
WHY!
How can we proceed regardless what a 10 year old document says when we know
that it is both out dated and even more important, inappropriate. One of our
councillors spoke out passionately to the citizenry that if we don’t agree with
the rules, work hard to change them. I’ll start, NO DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT A
WATERSHED STUDY. There, I’m only about the 250th person that has said this
recently.
Did
I mention that Ramsey is the drinking water source for about 40% of our
population?
Glenn
Murray, Sudbury Chapter, Council of Canadians, July 6
The Planning
Committee members worked hard to be on top of the complex issues related to the
Keast Dr. rezoning approval at today’s meeting. However, what they said
about their concerns and their decision did not match. Councillor
Landry-Altmann outlined a possible doomsday scenario for the lake in the future
and made the connection between a healthy lake and the welfare of those living
on the lake and the larger population dependent on it for drinking water.
Then, she joined the others in approving the zoning application and
subdivision with only one stipulation.
The planning
committee did add an important proviso, that the stormwater management and lift
station be taken out of the flood plain. However, the committee handed
over the project to a city manager and the developer with only impassioned
exhortations that both he and the city manager follow the most stringent
environmental practices in building this subdivision. The solution
was not imaginative or forward looking even though Councillor Landry-Altmann
had outlined a possible doomsday scenario for the lake in the future and made
the connection between a healthy lake and the welfare of those living on the
lake and the larger population dependent on it for drinking water. The
watershed study was mentioned as a needed tool for decision-making but, since
the official plan had not mandated it, no one was willing to take their
concerns to that extent.
This is the
same developer who is not willing to abide by the conditions that were set down
by the city even after the city had bent the rules to accommodate the broad
outlines of his development plans. The city manager has been put in
charge of stickhandling this project through to the end with a developer who
has run out of money and a city that is trying to keep down its staff
levels. This is a formula for bending and misshaping the rules, not
adding more and better ones. We are giving the hen house to the foxes. .
. or is it to a developer whose wolf call is the OMB?
Elaine Porter, Sudbury
Chapter, Council of Canadians, July 6
July 7, Letter to
the Editor, Northern Life
They Missed the Boat
City Council’s
Planning Committee turned away from making the right decision yesterday.
Despite its own concerns for the protection of the City’s drinking water with
Ramsey Lake providing 40 % of that source, it approved the huge development of
147 homes along its pristine shores to compromise part of the lake’s watershed.
There was some
handwringing yesterday as the Committee churned through its decision-making,
but not enough because they recommended approval for it anyway. Regrettably,
all those concerns for Sudbury’s potable water fell by the wayside as they also
ignored the fact that those 147 units will crowd the shores of our lake with
people, lots of people who will salt their driveways, wash their cars, fertilize
their lawns and add to the flotsam of surface water that will leak into our
lake. Other construction projects are sitting by, waiting for approval and
Council will be hard pressed to refuse the others. So our future generations
may well see our lake crowded and polluted by urban development. And who knows
what the pending watershed study will tell us at a later date. What to do when
its tells us, “well, you shouldn’t have done that”. Let’s see what brave soul
will call for expropriation when that day comes.
If they hoped to
dissuade the developer from appealing to the OMB by supporting a somewhat
reduced 147 dwellings rather than the original 174, it seems the developer is
appealing anyway and now he has the tacit approval of the Committee to support
his plea. Eight hours of committee meetings over the last two weeks was a
revealing civic experience. They fixed 42 conditions to the proposal. Wasn't
that an indication this proposal was a bit sour? As our politicians struggled
to do things right with this proposal they neglected to do the right thing. The
timing was right to protect our lake – but they missed the boat.
André Clément,
Chair, Sudbury Chapter, Council of Canadians