+(Large).JPG) |
| Site of proposed Fire Hall north of Beaver Mines looking east C. Davis photos |
Chris Davis, Pincher Creek Voice
Marchuk's home is in the vicinity of the land in question. Beaver Mines resident Jacques Thouin sent a letter to council asking that a delegation be allowed to speak at the meeting. Delegations speak at the beginning of MD Council meetings. Councillor Marchuk had the issue added to the regular agenda for later in the meeting as well. Thouin was in attendance but another Beaver Mines resident Greg Hession acted as the delegation and spoke to the council.
In addition, an email from Beaver Mines resident Rob Bronson was also part of the correspondence. Bronson and his wife Barb own the property directly across from the site in question, an approximately 4 acre plot of land which is located just west of the Highway 507/Highway 774 junction at the north entrance to the hamlet of Beaver Mines.
"My wife and I would like to register our strong objection to the fact that trees have been knocked down directly across from our house for the construction of the Beaver Mines Fire Hall," reads the email, in part. "Our objection is based not only on what trees have been removed but also the timing of the tree removal and the ongoing lack of communication."
"No consideration has been given for a visual barrier," Bronson's email continues. He states that such a barrier could have been accomplished "by leaving a band of trees in place". Bronson goes on to say that a petition has been circulating throughout the Beaver Mines community about the fire hall project, and presenting the petition to council had been on the agenda for this council meeting already. "Cutting down the trees right before the opportunity to present the petition can only be seen as an affront to the Beaver Mines community. The personnel responsible for authorizing the removal of the trees need to explain their actions to the community."
"We (Barb and I) have still not seen any plans for the site and do not have any assurances that the future activities and uses of the site will be "Fire Hall use only" as stipulated in the bylaw. It's only after understanding the scope of the site, that planners can deal with access and visual barrier issues that minimize the impact on stakeholders. As the Beaver Mines residents most affected by the site, why can't there be some communication in this regard. Does council see a need to minimize stakeholder impact? The events of the past week make us wonder."
"Despite our objections, we understand that the whole process needs to move forward. This is why we support the objective of the petition to hold a public meeting that presents factual information to the community."
In his presentation to council Greg Hession said he was the President of the Beaver Mines Community Association and also a member of the Beaver Mines fire department. He said that he has heard concerns from various members of the community regarding the choice of location for the new fire hall. He added that "Nobody I've spoken to is against building a new fire hall".
"The way this happened raises communication concerns." Hession said he had a petition, the same one as mentioned above, with "about 34 signatures on it asking for a definition of what construction of the new fire hall entails."
"What are the other intentions in regards to the remaining unused portion of the property?" Hession reiterated that the size of the property was concerning, as was the level of dialogue. He suggested council was 'out of touch with the stakeholders in the situation". He also wanted to know who authorized the clearing of the trees, what the access to the property was going to be, and how would it affect the supply of water to the hamlet of Beaver Mines.
Councillor Terry Yagos explained that the land in question was actually in the MD, not in the hamlet of Beaver Mines. He also clarified that two acres was set aside for a water reservoir, "not for a water tower", which he explained he had mistakenly said at a public meeting on the subject held last November. In terms of some of the water supply concerns raised he said the new water plant in Cowley "is designed to cover Beaver Mines". He clarified that council has not yet decided many of the issues raised (reservoir vs tower, water supply, site plans).
"We went out as a council and took a look at the clearing that has been done," said Reeve Bjorn Berg. "We saw all the trees on the ground and damaged soil areas." He asked Hession if the community had discussed how they'd like the site to be corrected. Councillor Marchuk said he wanted council to answer all of the residents' concerns in written form, and suggested that coming up with drawings of the plan would be a good thing.
"The way this happened raises communication concerns." Hession said he had a petition, the same one as mentioned above, with "about 34 signatures on it asking for a definition of what construction of the new fire hall entails."
"What are the other intentions in regards to the remaining unused portion of the property?" Hession reiterated that the size of the property was concerning, as was the level of dialogue. He suggested council was 'out of touch with the stakeholders in the situation". He also wanted to know who authorized the clearing of the trees, what the access to the property was going to be, and how would it affect the supply of water to the hamlet of Beaver Mines.
Councillor Terry Yagos explained that the land in question was actually in the MD, not in the hamlet of Beaver Mines. He also clarified that two acres was set aside for a water reservoir, "not for a water tower", which he explained he had mistakenly said at a public meeting on the subject held last November. In terms of some of the water supply concerns raised he said the new water plant in Cowley "is designed to cover Beaver Mines". He clarified that council has not yet decided many of the issues raised (reservoir vs tower, water supply, site plans).
"We went out as a council and took a look at the clearing that has been done," said Reeve Bjorn Berg. "We saw all the trees on the ground and damaged soil areas." He asked Hession if the community had discussed how they'd like the site to be corrected. Councillor Marchuk said he wanted council to answer all of the residents' concerns in written form, and suggested that coming up with drawings of the plan would be a good thing.
Later in the meeting when the issue arose as part of the agenda Reeve Berg said "The next part is coming up with plan. We've never had a plan." Berg suggested that a selection of different site plans to choose from might be a good way to proceed. Councillor Marchuk said he would like to see the engineers working with the three most directly affected landowners (including himself) in the planning.CAO Wendy Kay said the a site plan was part of the 2014 budget.
The agreement signed with the landowner who sold the MD the land states specifically that the MD must build a fence on the property line to keep his cows out. Councillor Marchuk expressed his wish that no more trees be removed from the property, but was told by Director of Operation Leo Reeyk that more had to go to construct that fence. Marchuk asked if the fence could be build 10 feet inside the property line, where the trees have already been removed, and was told that was not possible under the agreement, with Councillor Yagos explaining that to do so would also leave the MD liable for a number of concerns in the future, a position supported by other members of council. Reedyk also explained that the trees would actually have to be cleared for a distance past the fence line 'typically based on the height of the trees' for maintenance access and so trees wouldn't fall on and damage the fence.
The agreement signed with the landowner who sold the MD the land states specifically that the MD must build a fence on the property line to keep his cows out. Councillor Marchuk expressed his wish that no more trees be removed from the property, but was told by Director of Operation Leo Reeyk that more had to go to construct that fence. Marchuk asked if the fence could be build 10 feet inside the property line, where the trees have already been removed, and was told that was not possible under the agreement, with Councillor Yagos explaining that to do so would also leave the MD liable for a number of concerns in the future, a position supported by other members of council. Reedyk also explained that the trees would actually have to be cleared for a distance past the fence line 'typically based on the height of the trees' for maintenance access and so trees wouldn't fall on and damage the fence.
+(Large).JPG) |
| Garry Marchuk points out fenceline at site |
Councillor Marchuk has been very vocal about his opposition to the site location for the new fire hall, and the issue was one of his reasons for running for council. I toured the site with him on the evening of October 8. What was immediately obvious was the scale of the tree removal. Most of the site was treed, now most of it is not. "I'm disappointed that this happened," said Marchuk. "I don't know who authorized it. No one will admit to it, They've taken a 4 acre piece of property and literally clear cut it, without authorisation, without any consultation with anybody. Nobody's speaking up. This area was a proposed site for a fire hall. Nothing has been approved, nothing has been planned, nothing has been budgeted for."
"There has been no physical site approved on the land, so why did they go ahead and do this?"
"If you're going to build a fire hall, there is enough real estate that they've cleared here that you could literally put almost every home that is in Beaver Mines on this site."
"I'm angry, I'm disappointed in council, I feel bad for my neighbour. Ten days ago, we had a pristine little forest area here. Now he gets to look out on this. It's not fair to him. There's been no public consultation. The community's been left out."
"There has been no physical site approved on the land, so why did they go ahead and do this?"
"If you're going to build a fire hall, there is enough real estate that they've cleared here that you could literally put almost every home that is in Beaver Mines on this site."
"I'm angry, I'm disappointed in council, I feel bad for my neighbour. Ten days ago, we had a pristine little forest area here. Now he gets to look out on this. It's not fair to him. There's been no public consultation. The community's been left out."
"I think this area should be cleaned up and all this should be removed," he said, indicating the piles of downed trees and debris. "I think it should be harrowed, and seeded to keep the dust and the dirt down. I think that trees should be planted to provide separation between the neighbours that have to look upon this mess."
"I'm not saying that they're opposed or against development on this site, I'm saying that they're disappointed that they were never included in the process from square one. Right from the get go, the community was just avoided. They were never questioned, never asked it was just forced down our throats. 'We're building a fire hall, this is where it's going.' The community is absolutely in favour of getting a new fire hall. That's never been the issue."
"The issue is the behind-closed-doors, the lack of information the lack of communication, and this kind of thing. This is what they're opposed to."
"Now, all of a sudden, in the future, we're going to get choices. 'Where do you want this fire hall to go? Where do you want this water reservoir to go? Where do you want this to go, that to go?'. Those choices should have been made right from the get go. I'm still of the belief that the whole process right from square one should be taken back to the community, with choices, and let the community make a choice."
.JPG)
This whole issue would not have been a issue with the carefull placement of 12 feet of barbwire that was remove without any consultation with the landholder or any other person or persons that the removal this said barbwire.
ReplyDeleteIf more people would like a "say" in such matters, then maybe they should run for council. The fact that over half of our M.D. and Town of Pincher Creek Council have been acclimated to their positions is a little sad. Additionally, the ones who are complaining that they don't have a say in such matters, better be making every attempt to attend any M.D. meetings that do take place.
ReplyDeleteI think better to get out and vote on October 21 in order to effect changes to our present council. It is good that there were promises made at the MD9 All Candidates night to improve communication with the ratepayers -- I am left wondering when they are going to start. This is unacceptable!
DeleteNimbyism at its finest , they move in and no one else is allowed to disturb there little piece of heaven. I suggest if they don't want anything done in " there" backyard please move to Saskatchewan and buy a whole township and park yourself in the middle of it. If they would quit there whining and wasting ratepayers money long enough for the firehall to be built I'am sure the landscaping will follow
ReplyDeleteWhen someone builds something in your backyard, the neighbourly thing to do is to tell you what they're going to build. If it's the MD I'm pretty sure they have to tell you. I've been asking for 2 years and still don't have an answer. I guess we won't for awhile because the Reeve now says "We've never had a plan". What we're doing is not nimbyism. We understand that BM needs to modernize the existing Firehall and that part of the 4 acres across from us will be used for this. We're okay with that. We've just been asking questions and looking for some clear answers about what is going on the other 3 acres. I'm sure you would do the same thing. Hopefully because of this meeting we will start getting some answers.
DeleteCouncil started mixing long range planning - getting water to Beaver Mines - back in 2011 but would not publicly say this. Now there is a push to get water to BM. And guess where it will likely be going - to a "Firehall Use only" 4 acre parcel of land. Now the firehall is all wrapped up with water and sewage in BM issues. If council had just dealt with getting a new Firehall it would be built by now.
ReplyDeleteIn the all candidate forum Mr. Berg said he is a visionary and a good policy maker. He needs a policy to let people know what his vision is. The way you do this is to put a plan in front of everyone. But they don't have anything on paper and yet they go and cut down the trees.
But people aren't whining because the trees got cut down, the petition was already happening before then. They are rightfully asking for the MD council to explain what they are up to.
Mr. Berg is a true politician, he knows where to get his votes. I hope the MD remembers the dust storm south of Cowley a couple of years ago.
ReplyDelete... and more importantly, I hope they remember how to make their way to the polls tomorrow - Monday, Oct. 21.
DeleteThe Councillor for this area is Garry Marchuk, he's been acclaimed, there's no vote that will change that. There's no evidence Bjorn had anything to do with this, he seems to be angry it happened this way in fact.
ReplyDelete