City loopholes, lack of communication frustrates South End residents

BY TRACEY DUGUAY


Drilling…blasting…excavation machines belching foul smelling exhaust. This was summer in the city for residents of a small neighbourhood in the city’s South End.

At first, nestled behind tree-covered rock outcrops, they assumed the work had to do with the four-laning of Long Lake Rd. and expansion of the Southwest Bypass.

It wasn’t until the 20-foot-high outcrops started to disappear and the machinery sat steps away from their backyards that they really started to get concerned.

“It’s a big scale project. How can a big project like that go on without any notice,” said frustrated resident Judy St. Onge.

With Greater Sudbury’s building boom expected to continue for the next few years at least, growing unrest between residents and property developers is an inevitable consequence.

According to the Ministry of the Environment, in a letter sent to the city, they’ve seen an “exponential” increase in complaints about blasting in the city.

Ward 9 Councillor Doug Craig is smack-dab in the middle of the above-mentioned “progress” quagmire since the conflict involves a business owner and the residents along Harrison Dr. and Gateway Subdivision. The issue has prompted him to question if the city needs to create new policies to govern development.

“They’re moving the earth over there. There’s a lot of blasting,” he said. “In a booming economy, it seems we sometimes forget taxpayers live in residential areas that abut these high-activity commercial developments,”
Irate residents are contacting their councillor to find out what’s going on in their backyards. But, he can’t help them because the owner of the business won’t talk to him, nor will he meet with his neighbours.

“I’ve made a couple of attempts to engage the business owner or to get him to talk to the neighbours but I haven’t been successful,” Craig said.

Northern Life also was unable to contact the property owner.

The business owner hasn’t done anything wrong. He went through the proper process in 2004 when he filled out a planning application to rezone the property so he could move his business there. He held a neighbourhood meeting, and in accordance with planning protocol, a public hearing was also held prior to the rezoning application being approved.

Where the communication broke down was when the business owner altered the plan for the property. In the original site plan, the northern part of the 3.5-acre property, where the rock outcrops were located, wasn’t supposed to be developed.

“The balance of the site is undeveloped. The undeveloped area is comprised of moderate rock outcrops which increase in elevation as one proceeds north. Limited regenerating vegetation occurs throughout the undeveloped area,” stated the planning report prepared in 2004.

St. Onge’s husband attended the public meeting in 2004 and didn’t have any concerns about the project at that time, but those aren’t the family’s feelings now.

“We would have had concerns if we knew the project was going to come this far back,” she said.

Another resident in the area, Aino Laamanen, bought her house in May. She said she had a “lovely backyard” and the natural environment gave it a cottage-like feel. The outcrops and trees also provided a natural sound barrier to Long Lake Rd. and provided privacy.

“It looks like they’re going to level it,” she said. “I’d like the business owner to meet with us and tell us what his plans are and listen to our concerns. I just want him to hear us.”

Bill Lautenbach, the director of planning services for the city, said the recent development caught the city off guard too.

“It certainly was nothing that was presented to the planning committee or the residents. Their site plan only covers a portion of the site where the existing business already is.”

The city uses “moral suasion” to get developers to hold public meetings before major projects are undertaken, with a backup hearing during the planning meeting. But there isn’t an official city policy or bylaw regarding site alterations and it isn’t a requirement of the Planning Act.

“Some communities might have a site alteration bylaw. The city doesn’t have that,” Lautenbach said. “This would have facilitated some sort of official permitting system in which the residents would have been informed this was going to happen.”

He said he’s had discussions with Craig about this project. They were both hoping the property owner would take it upon himself to meet with the residents to quell their concerns.

If the owner comes before the planning department again for a site plan amendment, which is needed for any sort of business expansion, proper buffering, access controls and planting along the frontage would be discussed. And, at this point, the residents would finally get some of the answers they are seeking.

For now, the matter is out of city officials’ hands, but Lautenbach said they will be “keeping an eye” on the property.

Craig said he thinks it might be time to revisit policies and procedures when it comes to large-scale development work.

“I think the city should have some policy in place. I think the business community ought to take more concern and communicate on some kind of level, or be forced to, before they can do the things they are doing there.”