Open Letter to RVCA re our bridge, April 20th 2023

Thank you Sarah.  Unfortunately I received this notice after I made our driveway passable again, as we needed access to the property that day.

What is the process to have gravel added when a property cannot be accessed without it, and how quickly does this approval happen?  Can it be refused?

The current bridge was approved by the RVCA on June 28, 2005 and is in desperate need of being replaced.  The bridge was approved below the floodplain and with

a solid metal beam spanning the entire length of the creek.  This causes a barricade and forces the water to move on either side of the bridge and cause erosion.  

We will be starting the application for a new, higher bridge - can you please provide the link to the permits required for this.

Being a forest school and friends with the otters, beavers, frogs and owls who call this creek home, we wish to do so while causing the least damage to the environment.  

We chose the name Blueberry Creek Forest School and Nature Centre as we are honoured to teach children to love and to care for this land and its animals.

In 2018 I did receive a quote to replace the bridge, but was persuaded not pursue one in 2018 in meetings with the RVCA.  All of these records have been carefully kept.

September 17th, 2018: "We indicated that the cost to elevate the existing bridge to your property may prove to be prohibitive as there would be a need to ensure that

the floodplain up and downstream of the subject property is not affected.  This would likely require additional culverts or box culverts to allow sufficient volume of water

to pass through.  To demonstrate that this could satisfy the RVCA's policies would require a balanced cut and fill and detailed engineering plans that demonstrate the 

extent of the floodplain remains unaltered.  Again, as stated above, this may prove to be cost-prohibitive."

October 30, 2018 "You have also inquired about whether the RVCA would be in the position to offer support for "Plan B" (described as engineering/fill and reconstruction

of the existing bridge to provide safe access to the subject property.  Please note that our office is not able to make a comment on this type of proposal at this time."

I disagree that elevating the bridge could cause a problem - it is the current bridge design below the floodplain that causes the water to get backed up by floating debris -

every summer we need to pull out items such as old adirondack chairs that have been lodged underneath the bridge.  Given it is our only road access, how is the RVCA 

allowed to refuse permits in order for our property to be safely accessible with regular spring flooding?  It is my understanding the culvert under Highway 7 by our property will also be expanded, but this will not be benificial if water cannot flow under our bridge and through.

As you are likely aware, our environmental planner was in negotiations with the RVCA for 3 years for a building permit before we realized we were never going to be allowed to finish 

our Art Studio building  - even as a storage building.  From October 30th, 2018 to September 7th, 2021 over twenty-four new requirements were made by the RVCA to approve the structure, at the cost of thousands of dollars spent on new site elevations surveys, foundation reviews, drawing revisions and multiple engineer drawings.  

This amount does not include time.

Once this was completed the RVCA wrote on January 8, 2021 "With the RVCA response today, and your agreement of the other points listed above on November 27, 2020, I 

think your clients can move forward and make an application for a permit to our office."

This tone was reversed on September 7, 2021 with the letter "RVCA staff are unable to issue a permit for the proposed storage facility." and a lengthy list of new requirements.

We then proceeded to the executive committee under the original Art Studio application (this build was on the former footprint of the approved land use of  "i) a single detached dwelling, ii) a bed and breakfast establishment iii) an antique and art shop", so from Art Shop to Art Studio was not that significant of a change of use.  The permit was formally rejected by the executive and we were formally able to begin our double lawsuit against Tay Valley Township for issuing the building permit in 2017.  The Mississippi Conservation Authority had also issued a permit for the septic for the Art Studio, under change of use to "mixed use/educational". 

The Ministry of Transportation also approved our permit under "Rebuild of existing building on property using exact footprint.  This building was previously used as an antique store, the new use will be for a children's art studio as part of Blueberry Creek Forest School and Nature Centre"

Given our history with the RVCA, it makes me very nervous to be toldI have to apply for a permit to lay gravel to make my property accessible.

You may not be aware that the RVCA knew of my proposed land use since May 19th, 2017, when my email was shared to Martha Bradburn by the TVT planner.  This was four months before the forest school was opened, and six months before the RVCA and TVT began its attempt to shut us down and litigate.  At this point I had invested 160,000 dollars in improvements to the building, septic and land.

"Hello!

My name is Robyn and I have recently purchased a property in Tay Valley that is mixed residential/commercial.  My hope for this property is to have a not for profit forest school and community

garden, with space for workshops.  This is new territory for me and I am inquiring into what applications need to be filled out...I am currently training with Forest Schools Canada on how to create a school environment with a focus on care for the environment and relationship to the land and community.  I appreciate your expertise in this process.  Take Care, Robyn Mulcahy-Reid"

I was never given a response from the TVT planner or the RVCA.  The building permit was issued by TVT and the first contact with RVCA occured when they came on the land on November 14th, 2017 and  a Stop Work Order was issued.

Incredibly, the Council members of TVT were not aware we even existed until March 5, 2018 when we went public with our story.

Given that the RVCA runs its own forest school Foley Mountain Forest School with an almost identical program and policy and procedures (but for significantly more money) down the road from us in Westport, it feels a conflict of interest to have been so aggressive with me these past five years.

I don't use that word lightly.  This included refusing to disclose documents under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Appeal Number MA19-00062)

"The RVCA decided to exercise its discretion to deny the requester access to various documents and parts thereof.".  This is significant as Tay Valley Township also withheld just under 1000 pages of 

documents from us under MFIPPA, and many of those were the same documents the RVCA withheld.  I have never understood why the TVT has spent so many resources to fight a 

children's nature centre - $49,127.52 in legal fees blocking Freedom of Information inquiries, and an additional $20,663.24in legal fees regarding zoning, land use and all other matters in 2018-2019.

These numbers were provided to us by Tay Valley Township under the MFIPPA requests.  

Then, there was the time RVCA formally threatened me with jail time.  

This was after I had complied with the Stop Work Order issued by Tay Valley Township when they realized they had issued the building permit without the approval of the RVCA.  

Instead, for the past five years I have watched our beautiful future Art Studio rot to the ground, damaged beyond repair by the elements.  

This letter given to me by the RVCA October 24th, 2018 stated:

 "The work undertaken on this property is considered to be an offence under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act., 1990 as amended.  You should be aware that legal action 

may be initiated against you and the company and operators working on the property if the matter is not resolved to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority.  Section 28 (16) of the Conservation Authorities Act states that every person who contravenes a regulation made under subsection (1) is guilty of an  offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or a term of imprisonment of not more than three months".  

I was later stripped of my Commercial C land use, with only the existing uses grandfathered in, at a significant loss of value to the land.

As a volunteer running a registered not-for-profit forest school and nature centre for children, the stress of dealing with the RVCA has taken a significant toll on my health.  I have spent over five years fighting our local township and a conservation authority to create a Community Service that fosters a deep love of the natural environment.  To date over 192 children have attended, with Blueberry complimenting their primary education at public school, Brooke Valley, or homeschooling.  

Our children need access to natural spaces that allow them to connect with the land in a meaningful way and experience the joy of learning in nature, and that is worth fighting for.

Robyn Mulcahy