Madhunt Publishing Company
Tecumseth Free Press Online
To email: Tony Veltri .
New Tecumseth Free Press Online welcomes and reads letters to the editor reflecting the diverse views of all readers.
Letters on timely subjects of broad interest will be published. Letters may be edited for clarity, accuracy and brevity.
We do not publish poetry, third-party or anonymous letters, or those signed with a pseudonym. We will however post letters without a name if warranted.
For verification purposes, your address and daytime telephone number are required, although we do not publish them.
We do not include the writer's email address,
unless requested to do so.
'You have no right to protect your property from waterway erosion,'to the editor,
Posted September 16, 2013
As opposed to the NVCA taking the stance of not allowing any fill, grading, landscaping, etc. on properties within a yet specifically defined flood plain zone, has anyone ever taken them to task with the below suggestion? And what I mean by 'yet specifically defined flood plain zone' is the only to know the actual extent of the floodplain, is when the property holder submits a non-refundable permit application and is forced to supply a survey fully at their own expense.
Where is there any program or plan in place that enables property owners and the NVCA to work together to ensure the water courses are kept clear? Is the floodplain not similar in concept to a bathtub? If the drain is clogged, and you have the faucets on full - there are going to be problems.
In every instance I've seen of flooding issues, it is not fill blocking up the underpasses or creeks, it is trees and debris that have collapsed into the streams and are swept downstream, and plug up culvert pipes and pathways under bridges. If you keep the pipes clean and clear, water will flow.
In instances where a homeowner wishes to shore up the bank of a creek or stream to prevent further erosion of their property, the NVCA's process is to first pay for a permit, then pay for a survey, then pay for an EIS (environmental impact survey), and then pay for the work to be done, if and only if the permit is approved. In other words, if you live on a property 'regulated' by the NVCA, you have no right to protect your property from waterway erosion, and no incentive to maintain an unencumbered pathway for heavy run-off situations, and you have no recourse against the NVCA for the damage caused by the waterway running through or along your property. Is this just an outright money grab or solely one-sided thinking?
How can the NVCA argue about a single house being built having an impact? Only a few years ago, a new church was added on Church St. in Alliston (part of the floodplain). The church was required by the Town and NVCA to raise the grade by 3' for over 2 acres. Doesn't seem like much of an issue until you take into account that there was no basement in the building design, and the reason behind the insistence of the over $100,000 extra fill requirement, was so that the congregation would stay dry in the event of a flood.
Does common sense not suggest that if the road was under three
feet of water, no one would attend in the first place?