Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
tuclimit

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #26 
Hi everyone, I'm the current owner of 80 Salisbury Avenue and I would like to share these documents which may shed some new light on this issue. The first is a City of St. Albert interoffice memo from December 17, 1986. It was drafted by Mr. Rick Gillen who was the then City Plumbing and Gas Inspector. It was sent to the then City Solicitor Mr. Stan Brown (chief legal officer). The memo clearly states that Mr. Gillen conducted an inspection of the detached garage on this date and confirmed that "Waste oil tanks had been pumped out by 3 Way Oil Service on December 8th and tank inlets have been cemented closed."

  Untitled.png 

The next document is a single page out of the original building permits for the detached garage at 80 Salisbury. It clearly shows that the garage was approved on June 4, 1982, therefore it is reasonable to assume construction took place after this date. 
Untitled2.png 

So if construction on the garage occurred in June 1982 that means these tanks were only used for a period of 3.5 years. Highly unlikely any leakage would occur in such a short period of time, and it would appear that the City - after consultation with legal and engineering staff - has come to the same conclusion.


0
tuclimit

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #27 
I would also like to address Mr. Skarupa's evidence of hydrocarbon contamination being removed from the garage last spring. This detached garage is outfitted with an oil / grit environmentally friendly separator system. This common system is designed so that solids in the water will settle to the bottom while any oils (which are less dense than water) will float on top. In the middle of the system is the outlet pipe to the city sewer. This is the same type of system found in any parking lot, car wash etc.

This article from the University of Minnesota explains the system very well. http://mntap.umn.edu/vehicle/resources/66.floordrainsystems.html
. In the third paragraph under "Maintaining Separators" the article explains that periodic maintenance is necessary and, I quote, "Long-neglected separators may require hiring a clean-out service and arranging for proper disposal of the sludge." 

During my home inspection, this is exactly what was observed inside the system. The system was near full with solids (sands / dirt) and had not been emptied in many years. When one considers that in the last years of Elroy Haight's life (the previous owner who passed away in the fall of 2015) he was battling cancer and was approaching 80 years of age, it's not surprising that this system had not been emptied in some time. In order to clean out this sludge you would either have to hire a vacuum truck (which is over $1000.00) or you would have to shovel it out manually. For a retired senior battling cancer he likely had other financial priorities and most certainly wouldn't be shoveling it out himself. As this was noticed during my home inspection I requested that as a purchase condition the current owners arrange to have this cleaned out and they chose to hire Hyrdodig, and this is exactly what Mr. Skarupa observed.

Floor Drain System.jpg 

66.image.jpg  
In the Gazette article http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/Resident-asks-city-to-fund-environmental-assessment-20170211 it is noted that Mr. Skarupa has a receipt from a company indicating 1,070 kg of industrial sump waste was removed from the site, but as journalist Doug Neuman notes the receipt does not indicate an address where this occurred. The concrete box which makes up the oil / grit separator is only approximately 3 feet deep, and while they were pretty full with heavy wet dirt, I highly doubt it weighed 1,070 kg / 2,300 lbs.

Thanks for reviewing this information.
0
tuclimit

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danapop

 "The owner build a horribly ugly garage"


Dana, I have spent close to $20,000 in renos to my home over the past year. I'm not wealthy and I'm doing my best.

IMG_20160906_150242_hdr.jpg

0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #29 
Welcome to the forum tuclimit and thanks for clarifying some of the points being discussed here.

It is good to see you offering information we would otherwise never see. - HH 
0
Craig

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #30 

I want you to know tuclimit that this situation has never been about  you, its about the history of the property. We are happy you bought the property and look forward to having you as our new neighbor.

Thank you for coming forward with this situation as now I feel that I can share the events and my concerns over the past several years.

In 1981 Mr Haight bought the property. He obtained a permit to construct the building in 1982 and moved his business to 80 Salisbury Ave. We initially voiced our concerns at that time to the city in 1982, but to no avail. The Texaco gas station he owned was across from the St Albert Inn on the St Albert Trail.  That lot now sits empty save for a rock garden as it is so contaminated nothing can be developed on it. 

For a number of years we did not communicate with the city as my children went to school across the street. At the same time he made many verbal threats to my family and I, threating harm to us if I did not stop complaining to the city about his vehicle repair shop at this location. My concerns were confirmed,in 2012 he pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and illegal firearms in his house.We had no idea about this until it was reported in the news.  In 2012 the courts put him on probation.  On May 1, 2013 my wife Barbara and I had a meeting with Mayor Crouse in his office.  During this meeting we expressed our concerns as well as documents regarding the long history and  of the possibility of contamination on our property.  At the end of the meeting the Mayor did say, as the owner was getting older, he may be selling the property within the next few years and perhaps the city can do something when and if the property sells.

Some   documents we presented to  the Mayor included online advertisements that stated the following:

Elroy’s Automotive and Brake Specialists Ltd. at 80 Salisbury Ave. There were also maps on the location of the shop. It also indicated,

Estimated Total Employees – 2

Est. Years in Business - 25

Est. Total Sales - $187,427.

In an email  I advised the Mayor and City Council that the owner was ill and the property was going to be sold. Two City Councillors came forward and asked the City Manager to withhold release of the Compliance Certificate until it was confirmed that the property complied with all the bylaws and the site was not contaminated.  Ensuring that we as well as the new owners would be protected.  He refused their request. The matter was dropped.

On July 15,2016 I met with the Manager of Hydrodig at his office in Nisku. He stated that 2 sump chambers were 2 ftwide by 4ft deep each and they were full of contaminated material. They brought the material to Green For Life for disposal. GFL has acknowledged that they only accepted hazardous materials for disposal. Over 30 years who knows how often these chambers were full and had to be drained? Hydrodig did provide a field ticket confirming this. Although the address is not indicated at the location section of the ticket, it is written vertically on the ticket.  (This has been clarified in the St Albert Gazette on Feb 15,2017. Pg 24) I have a city memo dated Sept. 25,1986 confirming a tank was illegally installed under the building but the owner did not know what type of tank it was, what it was made of, the size or what the condition of the tank was upon installation.  Again, unanswered questions from the city to my concerns.   There is an abnormally high rate of cancers and cancer deaths within a 2 year period within a 1 block radius of this building. I will not use names or addresses because of privacy issues. They are as follow:

April 2011- my wife Barbara had a brain tumor partially removed and is still under the care of a neurosurgeon

Fall 2015-Mr Haight passed from cancer

April 2014 – the previous owner next door at 82 Salisbury passed from cancer

March 2013 – passed from cancer

July 2015 – passed from cancer

Now - There is currently an individual suffering from terminal cancer within a block of the property.

Are all of these cancers may be a coincidence, we don’t know?

On June 20,2016 Interim City Manager Mr Jardine sent me a letter stating  the city completed their own internal Phase 1 and felt the risk of contamination was low. The city cannot do their own Phase1, an unbiased 3rd party must complete the Phase 1.In Oct 2016 I requested a copy of the Phase 1 via FOIP. On Nov 23,2016 Mr Belke sent me a letter stating no records exist for a Phase1. This is contrary to what the June 20th letter states.

Several years ago we had 5 beautiful spruce trees on the property line between our home on Sorrel Crescent and 80 Salisbury. Three of them have died and had to be cut down, the other two are struggling to survive . At the same time when the trees started to die Mr Haight had completed taking all the grass out of the yard and replaced it with stone. While  answering questions to obtain quotes for a Phase 2 (as directed by the city)  there was a concern  voiced by an engineering  firm that he may have used the stone for a form of a drywell or soakway to dispose of materials, so perhaps that area should be tested to ensure that the trees have not died because of contamination.  On Nov. 27,2017 I received an email from Mayor Crouse suggesting that if I wished I should come to Council to make a presentation, which I did on March 7, 2016. This is the first of 4 well documented presentations I have made to Council within the past 12 months.

As the city allowed this vehicle repair shop to operate for 30 years we strongly believe it is the city’s moral and ethical responsibility to ensure our property is completely free from contamination and settle this matter once and for all for all concerned.

Again our issue is not with the you the currant owner and never has been.  The city  has not dealt with this issue during the past 30 years.

 Its time they take  responsibility to ensure that we are all safe.

 

 

 

0
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #31 
I'm not going to respond here anymore. If someone wants to discuss I am happy to over the phone. My number is listed a few posts up.
1
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #32 
Ah, following council methodology and retreating in camera on this issue?
0
Craig

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig

I want you to know tuclimit that this situation has never been about  you, its about the history of the property. We are happy you bought the property and look forward to having you as our new neighbor.

Thank you for coming forward with this situation as now I feel that I can share the events and my concerns over the past several years.

In 1981 Mr Haight bought the property. He obtained a permit to construct the building in 1982 and moved his business to 80 Salisbury Ave. We initially voiced our concerns at that time to the city in 1982, but to no avail. The Texaco gas station he owned was across from the St Albert Inn on the St Albert Trail.  That lot now sits empty save for a rock garden as it is so contaminated nothing can be developed on it. 

For a number of years we did not communicate with the city as my children went to school across the street. At the same time he made many verbal threats to my family and I, threating harm to us if I did not stop complaining to the city about his vehicle repair shop at this location. My concerns were confirmed,in 2012 he pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and illegal firearms in his house.We had no idea about this until it was reported in the news.  In 2012 the courts put him on probation.  On May 1, 2013 my wife Barbara and I had a meeting with Mayor Crouse in his office.  During this meeting we expressed our concerns as well as documents regarding the long history and  of the possibility of contamination on our property.  At the end of the meeting the Mayor did say, as the owner was getting older, he may be selling the property within the next few years and perhaps the city can do something when and if the property sells.

Some   documents we presented to  the Mayor included online advertisements that stated the following:

Elroy’s Automotive and Brake Specialists Ltd. at 80 Salisbury Ave. There were also maps on the location of the shop. It also indicated,

Estimated Total Employees – 2

Est. Years in Business - 25

Est. Total Sales - $187,427.

In an email  I advised the Mayor and City Council that the owner was ill and the property was going to be sold. Two City Councillors came forward and asked the City Manager to withhold release of the Compliance Certificate until it was confirmed that the property complied with all the bylaws and the site was not contaminated.  Ensuring that we as well as the new owners would be protected.  He refused their request. The matter was dropped.

On July 15,2016 I met with the Manager of Hydrodig at his office in Nisku. He stated that 2 sump chambers were 2 ftwide by 4ft deep each and they were full of contaminated material. They brought the material to Green For Life for disposal. GFL has acknowledged that they only accepted hazardous materials for disposal. Over 30 years who knows how often these chambers were full and had to be drained? Hydrodig did provide a field ticket confirming this. Although the address is not indicated at the location section of the ticket, it is written vertically on the ticket.  (This has been clarified in the St Albert Gazette on Feb 15,2017. Pg 24) I have a city memo dated Sept. 25,1986 confirming a tank was illegally installed under the building but the owner did not know what type of tank it was, what it was made of, the size or what the condition of the tank was upon installation.  Again, unanswered questions from the city to my concerns.   There is an abnormally high rate of cancers and cancer deaths within a 2 year period within a 1 block radius of this building. I will not use names or addresses because of privacy issues. They are as follow:

April 2011- my wife Barbara had a brain tumor partially removed and is still under the care of a neurosurgeon

Fall 2015-Mr Haight passed from cancer

April 2014 – the previous owner next door at 82 Salisbury passed from cancer

March 2013 – passed from cancer

July 2015 – passed from cancer

Now - There is currently an individual suffering from terminal cancer within a block of the property.

Are all of these cancers may be a coincidence, we don’t know?

On June 20,2016 Interim City Manager Mr Jardine sent me a letter stating  the city completed their own internal Phase 1 and felt the risk of contamination was low. The city cannot do their own Phase1, an unbiased 3rd party must complete the Phase 1.In Oct 2016 I requested a copy of the Phase 1 via FOIP. On Nov 23,2016 Mr Belke sent me a letter stating no records exist for a Phase1. This is contrary to what the June 20th letter states.

Several years ago we had 5 beautiful spruce trees on the property line between our home on Sorrel Crescent and 80 Salisbury. Three of them have died and had to be cut down, the other two are struggling to survive . At the same time when the trees started to die Mr Haight had completed taking all the grass out of the yard and replaced it with stone. While  answering questions to obtain quotes for a Phase 2 (as directed by the city)  there was a concern  voiced by an engineering  firm that he may have used the stone for a form of a drywell or soakway to dispose of materials, so perhaps that area should be tested to ensure that the trees have not died because of contamination.  On Nov. 27,2016 I received an email from Mayor Crouse suggesting that if I wished I should come to Council to make a presentation, which I did on March 7, 2016. This is the first of 4 well documented presentations I have made to Council within the past 12 months.

As the city allowed this vehicle repair shop to operate for 30 years we strongly believe it is the city’s moral and ethical responsibility to ensure our property is completely free from contamination and settle this matter once and for all for all concerned.

Again our issue is not with the you the currant owner and never has been.  The city  has not dealt with this issue during the past 30 years.

 Its time they take  responsibility to ensure that we are all safe.

 

 

 

0
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Honcho
Ah, following council methodology and retreating in camera on this issue?


Nope. They are free to quote me but I'm not interested in a back and forth. I've said what I know based on the appeal.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #35 
Yeah, the back and forth with such detail and length will drive more away from the issue than spur any meaningful discussion in my opinion, but hey, that is why this forum exists, for people to freely express opinions.

I just hope the respondents do not harm their cause more than help it, with this kind of detail and jousting.
0
tuclimit

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #36 

Craig I appreciate your response however what I am seeing here is mere circumstantial evidence at best. I prefer to work off facts - not beliefs or theories. This is why I presented the above physical documents, and can if anyone else wishes, produce additional building permit documents, City of St. Albert construction inspection reports, the utility right of way encroachment authorization letter, the variance permit and the real property report with compliance.

I would like to address some of your theories:

[QUOTE=Craig] The Texaco gas station he owned was across from the St Albert Inn on the St Albert Trail.  That lot now sits empty save for a rock garden as it is so contaminated nothing can be developed on it.
 
According to this St. Albert Gazette article (http://www.stalbertgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120609/SAG0801/306069964/st-albert-senior-pleads-guilty-to-drug-and-weapon-charges) journalist Ryan Tumilty indicates that Mr. Haight was employed by Canada Post for 20 years, then took over operation of the gas station. Is it not possible that the contamination occurred before Mr. Haight ran the station? Also, according to this Edmonton Journal article http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-earns-kudos-for-cleaning-up-and-developing-contaminated-gas-station-sites the City of Edmonton has a task force to deal with 50 derelict and contaminated prior gas station sites throughout the city. It would appear that this is a common issue for old gas stations. Will the City of Edmonton be investigating the private dwellings of these past 50 owners? No, of course not.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig

in 2012 he pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and illegal firearms in his house. We had no idea about this until it was reported in the news. 


In the same Gazette article referenced above the journalist indicates that Mr. Haight accepted responsibility, plead guilty, went his entire life without a criminal record and volunteered for decades with the Kinsmen Club. Turns out the weapon charges were hunting rifles which were stored in a locked room but didn't have trigger locks. But I'm sorry, what does this have to do with contaminated soil?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig
Although the address is not indicated at the location section of the ticket, it is written vertically on the ticket.

 
This is not sounding too official....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig
There is an abnormally high rate of cancers and cancer deaths within a 2 year period within a 1 block radius of this building.....Are all of these cancers may be a coincidence, we don’t know?


A quick visit to the Canadian Cancer Society website http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-101/cancer-statistics-at-a-glance/?region=on shows that an estimated 196,000 new cases of cancer and 78,000 deaths from cancer occurred in Canada in 2015 alone. We don't have water wells in the city, and we're not eating strictly from a backyard garden. How do you believe this cancer is occurring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig
Several years ago we had 5 beautiful spruce trees on the property line between our home on Sorrel Crescent and 80 Salisbury. Three of them have died and had to be cut down, the other two are struggling to survive . At the same time when the trees started to die Mr Haight had completed taking all the grass out of the yard and replaced it with stone.



This is just a Google maps photo (image captured Sept '15) but to me the trees look very beautiful. I have 4 large trees in my backyard and I can assure you they too are healthy and strong. As mentioned before Mr. Haight was a senior citizen battling cancer. Is it not reasonable that he wanted low maintenance landscaping so he wouldn't have to be mowing and trimming what is quite a substantial backyard? You also failed to mention that he owned a large outdoor dog. Replacing grass with small stones when owning such a pet is a common practice.
 
Untitled.png 

In conclusion, I am not a person that lives by "freeman on the land" theories and I don't wear a tin foil hat, however I do enjoy my privacy and I don't want Government employees coming into my home and onto my property "turning over rocks", digging holes in my lawn, drilling wells and looking for something when there is nothing there. I'm doing my best to be a good neighbor and I wish this constant intrusion into my life would end.


1
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #37 
"In conclusion, I am not a person that lives by "freeman on the land" theories and I don't wear a tin foil hat, however I do enjoy my privacy and I don't want Government employees coming into my home and onto my property "turning over rocks", digging holes in my lawn, drilling wells and looking for something when there is nothing there. I'm doing my best to be a good neighbor and I wish this constant intrusion into my life would end."

You purchased a controversial property. Unfortunately until this matter is settled, constant intrusion may be what happens. Everyone involved seems to deserve closure.

It is a sad situation all around.
0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #38 
I believe 'EnoughAlready' has summed things up very well. I have little to add at this time but to convey to 'tuclimit' that while I understand your frustrations, you have been involved for a very short time compared to the seemingly endless uncertainty that the Skarupas have had to endure. It is imperative that this whole matter be resolved one way or the other for everyone's sake.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #39 
Interesting motion Crouse brought to council last year. ( GAZETTE p.7 Appeal Denied,FEB18) "Crouse brought a motion to council last year, to allow six-person group homes as permitted rather than discretionary uses, meaning notification would not have to go out to residents when a development permit is issued" 
CRouse has a  home rented to a group. Should he have even put forth this motion? Pecuniary?
0
Steve Stone

Member
Registered:
Posts: 40
Reply with quote  #40 

Tuclimit post #31 Feb. 17th

“In conclusion, I am not a person that lives by "freeman on the land" theories and I don't wear a tin foil hat, however I do enjoy my privacy and I don't want Government employees coming into my home and onto my property "turning over rocks", digging holes in my lawn, drilling wells and looking for something when there is nothing there. I'm doing my best to be a good neighbor and I wish this constant intrusion into my life would end”.

Thank you ‘tuclimit’ for introducing yourself and stating your concerns; your input on this possible hazardous contamination of soil on your and surrounding properties has been long awaited.  Your points in response to Craig Skarupa’s concerns may have some merit; however they do not satisfactorily answer any questions or concerns, nor do they in any way lessen the need for verification  by a Phase 2 Environmental Assessment. This assessment is absolutely crucial as we are dealing with possible major, long term and very serious health issues.  In addition to the health concerns of residents of the neighbourhood, and secondary to it, while this matter remains unresolved, property values will be questioned and clearly be a major risk to purchaser/loss for seller for all future prospective trading.

There are crucial elements and facts which were not addressed in your presentation.

A few comments and questions:

(1)  The Separator was obviously in operation after the waste oil tanks were emptied and sealed off in 1986.

Question: Since the waste tanks were sealed off, how was the oil disposed of, since there was no holding tank? Maybe used the converted yard (replaced grass with stones) to dump the oil? With poor maintenance and the solids section of the separator full, maybe the oil overflowed into the sewer line along with the waste water?

(2)  This file has been opened for several decades and never has there been a satisfactory response from the City.

(3)  You may not be aware of some of the City’s internal documents on this subject. Apparently, there are several hundreds of pages of correspondence to and from the City Manager over a consecutive period of approx. six month last year, leading up to the time of Draper’s firing. I am in no way suggesting that this had any relationship to Draper’s firing, but rather I am referring to the one involved in this correspondence and the time period. It seems clear that you really have very little idea of what has been and continues to carry on concerning this case.

(4)  Many hours have been expended by city staff and council, including “In Camera” confidential sessions – yet all we seem to have is silence and no conclusion to the matter.

(5)  The final question I have at this time is the most puzzling. The City has seen the need to perform a Phase 2 Assessment, to the point of justifying approx. $20,000.00 expenditure to do so. This offer by the City, at no cost to you, would have brought closure to the question that has plagued the neighbourhood for 30 years. It is beyond me to comprehend why you would refuse to have it done. It was and still is, a wonderful opportunity to be a genuine ‘hero’ in working for the common good of your neighbours and yourself, in providing your approval to the City.

This unsettling and very disturbing issue will simply not disappear without a phase 2 assessment, and will weigh heavily upon you and your neighbours shoulders until it is satisfactorily addressed and resolved.

Please reconsider your decision and have the City arrange for a Phase 2 Soil Environment Assessment.

 Thank youTuclimit.

1
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #41 

IMHO, this city and anyone who happens to have anything to do with it takes absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for any of the garbage that goes on here.

It would seem that the new owner didn't just walk onto the property and throw some money down.  No, he spent the $$$ to have this property inspected and everything done right(?).

And what did the inspector find that was somewhat different than the reality?  Oh, those tanks were pumped out and sealed.  But wait - no those tanks weren't sealed afterall.  

And, what of the lawyer who allegedly guided this new buyer?  Did he/she simply take the word of the city inspectors as "golden"?  If not, why didn't he/she withhold $$$ just to ensure that things were as they say?

And, what of the realtor who sold the gentleman this property?  Did he/she know the provenance of this property with a 30 year old garage?  Was he/she doing the buyer any favours.  One would think that a licensed "REALTOR" would have some idea as to the property.

And, what of the surveyor.  Didn't he/she/they refer back to previous surveys and building plans, before everything was given the go ahead?

All I can see is a bunch of people who say whatever they need to and simply pray that nobody finds out about their faux pas until after they retire - or die.

Trust is one thing this city and the majority of its cohorts are sorely lacking. 

Worst of the bunch is El Kabong trying to hide (and protect) those who don't deserve it.

Personally, I feel extremely sorry for the purchaser, as something like this will follow the property when at some point he decides to sell.  I believe it's called Disclosure.

Unfortunately though, Disclosure means nothing to a dishonest individual. 

 

0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #42 
This situation where tuclimit won't let people on his property is very baffling. you would think that he/she would be worried about his/her family's health. If oil was poured and buried in the soil of the lot and kids played in the yard...there is great concern. Something does not seem right. If it was me I would have the environmental study done. If there are contaminants, I would sue everyone involved. 
1
Ted Durham

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 371
Reply with quote  #43 
I believe the reason a person would not want to have the study done is that if they do have contamination, it will severely damage the property value and make it impossible to sell unless it is cleaned up.  By refusing to let the inspection happen, they can also become liable for any damages I would believe because by denying or concealing something will make you party to it down the line.  There is a simple solution, do the study around the property lines.
1
tuclimit

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Stone
Since the waste tanks were sealed off, how was the oil disposed of, since there was no holding tank? Maybe used the converted yard (replaced grass with stones) to dump the oil?


Do you have any evidence, at all, to suggest the previous owner of my home dumped oil into his backyard? The same backyard where his dog lived? What an absolutely absurd theory lacking any factual basis whatsoever. By your logic, I should go around telling everyone that Bluebird Janitorial Services - which deals in large volumes of chemicals - are dumping these pollutants into the North Saskatchewan River. I have no evidence, but that apparently doesn't matter.

I would suggest to you that he disposed of oil as anyone else would, by taking it for FREE to an eco station or equivalent facility.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Stone
With poor maintenance and the solids section of the separator full, maybe the oil overflowed into the sewer line along with the waste water?


A separator system is specifically designed so that oil cannot enter the city sewer. Oils are less dense than water and will always float on top. Please look at the simple diagram, it's not that hard to understand how it works.

66.image.jpg 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Stone
This file has been opened for several decades and never has there been a satisfactory response from the City....It seems clear that you really have very little idea of what has been and continues to carry on concerning this case.


Why don't you share the information that apparently only you seem privy to? We would all like to see it. And what's your definition of a satisfactory response? The one where tax payers shell out $25,000 on Mr. Skarupa's theories and possibilities?

As this document shows, Mr. Skarupa already received a response from City of St. Albert Chief Legal Officer Mr. Brown over 30 years ago in 1986. Mr. Brown writes that the garage has been properly built with all necessary permits and is within the guidelines of the Land Use Bylaw. He also tells Mr. Skarupa his situation is not unique as many homes are built next to large structures in this city. His property taxes were lowered as a redress and inspections were conducted to ensure a business was no longer operating out of the garage. This was 31 years ago folks.



  Untitled2.png 

Untitled3.png 

The question we should be asking here is why has it only been in the last year (since I took possession of the home) that Mr. Skarupa has begun making claims that the soil is contaminated? Why didn't he bring these motions forward years ago? The earliest mention of soil contamination that I can find is his presentation to Council on March 7, 2016. Does he honestly think I contaminated the soil in the past year? Is he trying to bully me, and why is he instigating this neighbor dispute? 
 


0
Steve Stone

Member
Registered:
Posts: 40
Reply with quote  #45 


tuclimit...
... why are you simply not prepared to have the tests done so that everything can be put to bed one way or another?
Simple question...give me a simple answer, without any tangents.


 

1
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #46 
@tuclimit - just want you to know that there are some of us who fully support you. 

@Steve - why should he? Tuclimit deserves to be left alone. He owes none of you anything.

__________________
 
1
tuclimit

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Stone


tuclimit...
... why are you simply not prepared to have the tests done so that everything can be put to bed one way or another?
Simple question...give me a simple answer, without any tangents.


 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Stone
It seems clear that you really have very little idea of what has been and continues to carry on concerning this case.


Because no one - not Mr. Skarupa, not you, has ever produced concrete evidence that there is contamination. All that has been presented is beliefs and hypotheticals. And that is not sufficient for me to let a company come onto my property and destroy my lawn by digging wells.

Still waiting for you to address why Mr. Skarupa waited 31 years to make these claims, and for you to bring forward the evidence that you claim I am lacking......

0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #48 
@Kevin,

Do you think people don't support this person?

Of course, by asking questions, they are being attacked, right Kevin?

Kevin, the most impartial man in the room. Everyone has an agenda but Kevin.

You get upset when people are being attacked, but when simple questions are being asked so people can understand someone's rationale, it's attacking as well. Can't win!

0
Craig

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #49 

Tuclimit -- I refuse to get into a debate about completing a Phases 2 Environmental Assessment.  I want it completed on MY property, NOT YOURS.

The previous owner operated an illegal vehicle repair shop from this building for over 30 years.  This was done in a subdivision zoned R1 - Low Density Residential.

As our yard and home is located mere feet from this building, I have been advocating for a Phase 2 on MY property, NOT YOURS.

You have called me out publicly as a bully, and stated I have no proof. I have been communicating with the city for close to 35 years. They have all my documentation and I have always been straightforward and honest with them. 

My presentation to the SDAB, which you attended, includes a 5 page “Impact Statement”.

This “Impact Statement” is dated November 27, 2015. The Mayor and all City Councillors have a complete copy of this package.

I have questions, and they have yet to be answered by city officials. They are:

1)    Prior to the sale and transfer of title why did the City Manager, Mr. Draper turn down a request by two Councillors to hold the release of the compliance certificate and place a caveat on the property ? This would have ensured all bylaws were met and the property could have been checked for contamination.

If the city had acted in responsible and prudent manner neither of us would be in this situation today.

2)    Why did the city wait until after your sale closed to offer you a Phase 2 be completed on your property?

Why was it not done prior to possession?     

3)    Why does the city now offer us $5,000 to complete a Phase 2 on OUR property knowing the cost would be $20 to $25,000?   We did not cause this problem.

           Our home and is very important to us. This is where we have lived for 37 years and raised our family. I am not asking for too much, I only want to ensure my family and I are safe from any form of contamination.   

0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #50 
I am going to temporarily lock this thread. I do not want this to turn into a personal grudge match, but I fear it is turning into just that. While it is an important subject, I think all involved need to step back and take a deep breath and think through what they may want to say to continue the discussion. Thanks for the input to date, but let's allow it rest for a day or so. Thanks. - HH

EDIT: Thread un-locked. - HH
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.