To the Editor:
This letter is one in a series that my husband and I will share as “informative letters”. Some might think this letter should have been submitted weeks ago, but considering that there is an ongoing local election, perhaps the timing is much better right now. Before casting your vote, consideration the contents of this letter. After all, you could be voting for someone who does not share your own ideals or values … or whose values are not best suited for the Town overall. (Note: Not all people listed below are elected officials)
The title “Lies. Mistruths. Deceptions. Smoke Screens. Little Truth.” describes, in my opinion, what occurred during the August 15, 2022 Saugeen Shores Planning Meeting that included Town Council, Bruce County Planning and other Town staff. I struggled to find the perfect words to describe the meeting. The best overall summation would be this: residents of our subdivision (and Town’s people, in general) were figuratively thrown under the bus. Words which would best describe my reaction to what I heard (and saw) would include: utter dismay, disgust, frustration, disbelief, shock, disappointment, offence and embarrassment. To ensure that not everyone who participated that evening is painted with the same paint brush, I will admit there were a few individuals who did make an effort to support our residents. So I will take this opportunity to say “thanks for trying”, “sorry that others didn’t show you or your concerns the respect they deserved” and “it was obvious that you were clearly being dismissed by others at the meeting”.
I have an issue with lies and especially with those people who use their lies to take advantage of others. Therefore, it should come as no surprise if I share just how disgusted I was to hear lie after lie, mistruth after mistruth. Is this the way that business is conducted in our community – that decisions made on your behalf and mine are done so based on lies? It would certainly seem so based on some examples I am sharing.
Note: If you have read the Planning Meeting Minutes from August 15, 2022, then you will be completely uninformed. They barely even capture the essence of what was discussed. Nor did the minutes identify the issues which should have been discussed but which were intentionally avoided. This is a quote from the meeting: “To that, I won’t go into too many details on the other comments that were raised by the public – not to suggest they are not important”. Well, contrary to the words you chose, you basically said that the comments were not important! How belittling of you.
On the other hand, if you watched the online meeting (video), then I am confident you will agree that the title I have chosen for this letter is very appropriate and accurate.
Unfortunately due to space constraints, I will not be able to share all examples to prove my point. The statements are derived from a transcript of the meeting, which was prepared as accurately as possible.
The examples are in chronological order only as they occurred during the meeting and therefore do not reflect or signify any order of importance.
1. Daniel Kingsbury (County Planner): “But I think it is important to note that the principal use, as I mentioned, or the lands are already designated for residential uses and zoned for residential uses. And so, there is a reasonable expectation that there is going to be development on those lands … that was a decision that Council made 15 years ago in terms of designating these lands for residential uses and zoning them as such.”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Deception – in my opinion. To the best of my knowledge, no one denied that the lands were zoned “residential” many years ago. (Whether they should have been designated that way, however, is another question) But the fact that the lands were “adjacent to” (ie. backed onto) the Miramichi Shores Subdivision and were NOT part of the subdivision, is the question at stake. Mr. Biener originally owned the property next door but there was no reason to think it was going to directly impact our subdivision when it was NOT part of it. Do you understand? If so, you are further ahead than the County Planner is.
2. Dave Myette (Councillor): “But knowing as they should have that there was an approved subdivision in this area for the past 15 years, even though it lapsed, but knowing that their real estate people must have told them when they bought these lots and they built these houses. They must have been aware when there was a dead-end road there and that the subdivision plan was in place.”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Lies … and Mistruths, in my opinion. It’s a 2-for-1 sale. Where do I start justifying my answer? First of all, the majority of homeowners purchased their lots directly from the developer who owned the subdivision at the time of purchase (ie. either Mr. and Mrs. Carter or Tom Clancy). Likely the only time real estate agents were involved was if the original lot owners re-sold their property. Secondly, on ALL the original plans of development for Miramichi Shores Subdivision – Phase 1, 2 and 3, there was NO Phase 4. Therefore, suffice to say, there was NO dead-end road for Phase 4 because Phase 4 didn’t exist. However, during progress of Phase 3 development, the lot configurations were suddenly changed by the developer, Tom Clancy. (Refer to photos attached).
Notice that one particular property is converted from a building lot into a road allowance. You will also notice two other things: the lot numbers changed at that time and the new lots #10 and #11 became much wider after the road allowance was added. So anyone purchasing a lot during Phase 1 … and in Phase 2 … and in the early stages of Phase 3 did NOT know about this road stub or the intention to add a 4th Phase.
3. Dave Myette (again): “… if there was a major motor vehicle accident that blocked the entrance and exit way [Collard Way] … and then subsequently there was a medical or another emergency in the area, there are alternate egress and access routes through those trails. It may not be paved and have shoulders and curbs on them but if need be a vehicle can get in there through those trails. The routes do exist whether it is an all-terrain vehicle or whether it is a regular vehicle. Those trails are rather robust and I believe that in an emergency situation they could get people in there. I don’t really see that as being a major blockage.”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Deceptions, in my opinion. Smoke Screens too. Here is yet another example of fixated trains of thought by certain members of Town Council and Town staff. They seem to think that the only thing that could possibly block the subdivision entrance is a motor vehicle accident. Did any of these individuals recently watch TV news footage about the destruction caused by Hurricane Fiona or by Hurricane Ian? What about the tornado and downburst which hit Port Elgin in the vicinity of the marina in 2021? In my opinion, it would be foolish not to assume there is a possibility that significant storms could also cause mature trees to fall in proximity to the entrance of our subdivision. And don’t dismiss the possibility of house or bush fires in the same area. Then there are his comments about driving “regular” vehicles on the trail to consider today. For all intents and purposes, I assume that when he refers to “regular” vehicles, he is referring to homeowners’ “personal” vehicles. I haven’t walked the length of the trail between the 10th Concession and South Street for quite some time, but if my memory serves me correctly, those small wooden walking bridges would not be able to withstand about 60* personal vehicles travelling in quick succession across them. I would consider changing my opinion on that if it could be proven otherwise. Don’t forget to take into account that while residents are trying to drive out of the subdivision on these trails, they may encounter “service” vehicles trying to get into the subdivision. Is there enough width on these trails and on those bridges to allow for two vehicles to pass safely? If not, you certainly wouldn’t want to have to cut down any additional trees to widen the access route. To do so, would be the equivalent of actually preparing a proper and legal emergency access route, would it not? *= based on 1 vehicle per household
4. Dave Myette (again): “And so, as much as I can see where they’re coming from with the objections, I think that they should have known this was a possibility when they built their homes … and I’m sure that the next series of homes on these 14 lots – and it’s only 14 lots … and I’m sure that in time, those neighbours will become neighbours and friends and the destruction for the year or two of construction will fade in their memories and this will be a great addition to the neighbourhood down there and I look forward to the opportunity to see what’s going to be built down there because this developer has a long history of building lovely homes …”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Mistruths and Deception, in my opinion. I won’t get into the lie involving “they should have known” that was addressed in Item #2. As far as the statement about the developer building lovely homes, I will have to investigate further. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall when this developer actually ever built a house. Thirdly, with respect to the comment about neighbours becoming friends, I personally find that very insulting. We are upset about: the lies, the smoke screens and the ways in which processes are manipulated for the benefit of developers. But to imply that residents of Miramichi Shores would not be civil or neighbourly to those who choose to purchase a lot here is extremely insulting, to say the least. I think an apology by Dave to the residents of Miramichi Shores Subdivision is required, as a bare minimum.
5. Matt Carr (Councillor): “I am just looking for some clarity. I am just going back, I guess, to the public meeting when we had talked about this subdivision. I think the question had come up that, I could be mistaken, but I think I heard this comment … is there not a maximum number of homes we can put on a cul-de-sac? Is that not the way it was phrased that some of these concerns were brought forward with? With that one entrance and egress, I guess?”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Smoke Screen – in all likelihood, in my opinion. The discussion at the public meeting was actually about the length of the cul-de-sac – not the number of homes on the cul-de-sac. If your intention, Matt, was to confuse the public and attempt to make other people (like myself) look foolish or whatever, then I guess it was in your best interest to use a smoke screen such as this. It may actually work one day … but not this time.
6. Jay Pausner (Town Staff): “Certainly the Town has a Guideline that talks about new development construction – a single access road not to exceed up to 150m, I think that’s the number. We are certainly beyond that.”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Little Truth. The response was in regard to Item #5 above about the length of the cul-de-sac. Hallelujah. Finally someone is telling the truth. Yes, the road length is NOT to exceed 150m. And during his clarification he drops a bombshell by admitting that the Town is indeed breaking the rules by exceeding that length! But what are you going to do about it, Jay? Spoiler Alert: Absolutely nothing. At the end of the meeting, Council ignores his admission and rather than denying the application, they proceed with approving the Draft Plan of Subdivision. Go figure. They know it’s wrong … but they say it is right!
7. Jay Pausner (again): “… with fresh eyes, we’ve had our new Fire Chief examine – another measure to protect for life-safety, is to ensure there is no parking permitted on the street [Collard Way]. Now there is a sort of managed access to the development. If those things are done and I stress, IF, which are through the Subdivision Agreement and the implementing Bylaws, that matter is addressed.”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Deception or Smoke Screen, would be my best guess. In other words, a life-safety measure is to avoid having parked cars on Collard Way – or at least a portion of it. Not sure how that will save lives. These signs, which may (or may not) be required through the Subdivision Agreement, will actually ensure that our entrance and exit will always be free and clear. Really? Those signs must have a magical ability to stop storms, fires and the like. Who knew? And if signage was the perfect solution for emergency egress, why then doesn’t the Town just post “No Parking” signs all along Acton Drive, for example, so the developer doesn’t have to put in two emergency egress points? What does the Fire Chief and Jay say to that suggestion for Acton Drive or other similar developments?
8. Daniel Kingsbury (again): “… this is lands that are designated for residential uses. It forms part of the Town’s residential supply and have been envisioned for residential uses for a long time now. Subject to certain policies. And so that was a decision that was made many years ago by a previous Council to designate these lands as residential. And they set out the parameters in which to do that. And so, when we are looking at the current application, we look at those parameters within that Official Plan. And again in Staff’s opinion that it does meet or conform to both the County Official Plan and Town Official Plan. And the Guidelines that are in place for development in this particular area.”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Mistruths and Little Truth, in my opinion. The “little truth” is only in regard to the part about the decision to rezone the land to “residential” back in 2008. Then the narrative goes downhill from there. If referring to the Official Plan which was in effect in 2008, then subdivisions greater than five building lots were NOT permitted in the Shoreline Residential areas. And yet the application wasn’t denied on that basis in 2008. And the Guidelines that are being referred to, is actually the document where it categorically states that cul-de-sacs CANNOT be longer than 150m – which Jay has already admitted that this cul-de-sac will be. Only in politics do 2 “no’s” or 2 “nots” equal 2 “yes’s”.
9. Don Matheson (Deputy Mayor): “Before any house is built, they must have a Grading and Drainage Plan created so I’m pretty sure that all the ones that are in that subdivision already had those and any new house that comes through will have that Grading and Drainage Plan and it will be taken care of so nobody is put out with any excess water.”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Mistruths and Little Truth, perhaps. Although having said that, this one is a tougher one to decipher in some respects. It is true that Grading and Site Plans are a requirement. However, the problem is that they are NOT enforced in Saugeen Shores. When foundations are being built, the Building Inspector (in my opinion) should be immediately monitoring them to ensure that going forward, the remainder of the construction will continue to meet the grading plans. Buildings which are protruding excessively out of the ground at the foundation stage, should have a “Stop Work Order” initiated immediately until further investigation and reconstruction (as required) is done. I am acutely aware that once a structure has been built in this Town, the appropriate officials will NOT take any action to have it torn down and re-built according to the approved Grading and Site Plans which were in place PRIOR to construction. So his words: “it will be taken care of” are not indicative of any actions I have ever seen the Town take when houses clearly do NOT meet the Grading and Site Plans.
10. Don Matheson (again): “I think that Council should remember that just a few mere months ago we had another subdivision plan that had lapsed on Acton Drive and it came back to us. So it had already been approved. It lapsed and it was Council’s decision to continue it on because it was on the books and it was there so we have to go forward. And this is the same condition. This plan was there when the WHOLE subdivision was created so we’re just giving it approval going forward that we are going to finish the original plan that was there.”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Deception and Lies, in my opinion. Perhaps “deception” isn’t the best word after all. Perhaps “intimidation” is better to describe how other members of Council seemed to be treated. Reason: it would be similar to saying that if one person does something, then you should do it too. So, if Acton Drive was approved for the second time, should that automatically mean that Phase 4 should automatically get approval again too? I disagree. Each should be treated independently based on its merits and its issues. New information may have come to light too during the lapsed period which requires the application to be re-evaluated. As for the “lie” category, telling the public that “This plan was there when the WHOLE subdivision was created” is outrageous (Item #2). When we purchased our lot, Phase 1 was not fully developed but was significantly complete. Phase 2 was about to begin next. Phase 3 was on paper but the road construction, etc. had not yet started. Bottom line, there were only 3 phases. I repeat: 1-2-3. That’s all. Phase 3 was advertised as “the final phase”. The Plan of Subdivision showed 3 phases – not 4. If you are confused, go back and look at the “original” drawing provided in Item #2. So now, Don, please show me on old records (ie. when the Carters first had their subdivision plans approved), where Phase 4 was located. If you can’t find the documentation, it’s because it never existed “when the whole subdivision was created”. You can publicly retract your statements at any time.
11. Don Matheson (again): “… the egress and how we can get in and out of there. I do know that on each of those subdivisions, there is a back way that you can get through with emergency vehicles. Not fire trucks, of course, but SUVs or all-terrain vehicles can get through the trails.”
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Deceptions or Smoke Screens, I suppose. Without a list to identify where “those” subdivisions are, it is difficult to comment. But from what I can ascertain, all other subdivisions don’t need a “back way” because they are designed with open ends or they are connected to multiple streets. Even then, in some cases there are additional formally-designed secondary access routes. I can’t think of another subdivision where people are expected to drive SUVs on a trail. If you have specific examples in mind, Don, please share them with me. And to ensure that I am not showing any favouritism, I will offer you the same trail ride suggestion that I offered Dave. In other words, please take the liberty of driving an SUV down the trail yourself and let everyone know how your experience went. Since you said that you are on the trail every week, then you should have lots of experience of where tricky spots may be located – which will mean you be able to navigate through those areas with ease.
12. Don Matheson (again): “This is agricultural land. It’s not your traditional agricultural land with one property. This is a working farm where there is machinery going all day long. I’d hate to think of somebody stumbling, knowingly or unknowingly, up into that area and getting injured due to the fact that there is machinery going through there – harvesting the different crops, tractors or whatever it is. We also have to consider that this is … this is agriculture land between the two towns and as our agricultural land starts to shrink we have to look at how … ways that we can protect it. Ways that we can keep the public out and have the use of the land for what it is meant to be – agricultural production.
Q. What’s the category: Lies? Mistruths? Deceptions? Smoke Screens? Little Truth? A. Lies and Deception, in my opinion. “Machinery going all day long”? Really, Don? I have seen multiple personal or utility-type vehicles parked in the fields for the workers and the produce. I have also seen a lot of employees working in the fields by hand. But for the life of me, I can’t say I have ever seen machinery being operated all day long. Another interesting point is that you appear to be more concerned about people getting injured by farm machinery than you are about Mother Nature. In this day and age, which is more likely to happen: someone who happens to be trespassing also happens to stumble in front of farm machinery somewhere amongst hundreds of acres … or … Saugeen Shores sustains another freak storm? I don’t know for sure, but the storms get my vote on this one. A third interesting point you brought up is the comment about the agricultural land shrinking and the need to protect it. And those farms which no longer exist, where did they go? That’s right, they were converted from farmland into residential or commercial land. And who was responsible for the rezoning and approval of said lands? Our Council. So the only ones to blame for the shrinking farmland situation are most likely our Council and the developers.
That is the end of the examples I chose to justify the title to my letter.
To you, the reader of this letter, you can use this information to be a better-informed resident of Saugeen Shores. You can use this information to make decisions before you cast your vote. We can agree to disagree. That’s our prerogative, right?
But should I receive some constructive feedback from those specifically identified in this letter, I will do my best to write another letter and share that information with you. But as they say, don’t hold your breath – somehow I don’t imagine clarification or apologies will be forthcoming any time soon on their part.
Lynn Staddon
