_, JAMES NOBLE’S GARAGE

Gallagher, Mary

From: Tania Kerr [tania@bigwave.caJ

Sent: April 29,2002 11% PM

59 ,I

n

To: mgallagh@city.hamilton.on.cs

cc: arawling@city.hamilton.on.ca; mayorwade@city.hamilton.on.ca; smerulla@city.hamilton.on.ca;ahorwath@city.hamilton.on.ca; bmorelli@city.hamilton.on.ca; ccollins@city.hamilton,on.ca;fdamico@city.hamilton.on.ca; Idiianni@city.hamilton.on.ca; abain@city.hamilton.on.ca

Subject: JAMES NOBLE’S GARAGEDear Ms. Gallagher:

My name is James Noble. I have lived in the Hamilton area for over 30 years after immigrating from Scotland. I have playedand coached minor soccer in many of our local communities, such as Mount Hamilton, East Hamilton, West Hamilton, Dundas,Glanbrook and the Canusa Games. I am president of the Hamilton United Old-Timers soccer team. I have also owned andoperated a number of small businesses, employing people from our commun’ky. I wrrentiy own and operate Noble Realty Inc.,selling mainly new homes for Dan Valentini Developments, and sit on the Discipilnary Commitee for the Hamilton-BurlingtonDlltrld Real Estate Board.

I am wrlting to request to speak to Councillors with regards to a court order that ~uires that I lower the roof line of my garage.The garage in question is af 120 Amelia St., a home that I newly constructed as my family residence, February 2001. I amlegally required to lower this roof line as of May 21,2002 so time is of the essence for my situation.

The main reason I would like an opportunity to meet with Council is that I believe that many irregularities took place within theBuilding Department some of which are connected to the Issuance and Refusal of a Building Permit(s) for my property. Afterapproaching my local Councillor for help, I feel that I have no other recourse but to involve ALL the councillors! help inuncovering whether due process and diligence was applied in my situation and help overturn this court order as my localCouncillor is also a neighbour and a conflict of interest is evident.

I have all documentation available and would be happy to provide further details at the Councillofs’ convenience.plead guilty and was fined for working through a stop work order.

But in short, IHowever, I worked through a stop work order because I was

paying two mortgages and running out of money and had sold my first house and needed to have the second ready for thedosing date. I had made minor changes to my garage without realizing that even a small amount of storage space (no floorboards, unheated, no wiring or plumbing, no access to the home!) required an ammended building plan. Men notified by thecity, I immediately submitted an ammended set of plans that incorporated the SMALL change I made to the garage. The minorchange I made to the garage did not and still does not to this day violate any building codes and reflect very similar buildings andadditions recently done in my neighbourttood. Nonetheless, the permit was denied by Peter Lampman without any formal reasongiven in writing. The verbal reasons I have been given vary from “too high” to “considered living space” to “done in bad faith”.

I am confident that all the facts are in my favour and am sure that any paperwork you review or examine will support my case. Allthat I ask is that if Peter Lampman be made a part of this process look carefully at any and all documentation before forming anyconclusions as I wnsider Mr. Lampman to be prejudice against me for some unknown reason.

I recognize that you probabty get many requests of this nature and I ackn4edge that time is at premium with many of thesepeople, however, I believe that is it vital that my situation be brought to light and heard so that other members of the wmmunitywill not be caught in a similar situation in the future.

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

James Noble

4/30/02

Page 1 of 2

Rawlings, Alexandra

Subject: FVV Garage at 120 Amelia

Dear Ms. Gallagher,

We have just seen an e-mail that James Noble sent to you with copies for city. councillorsregarding the garage of his house at 120 Amelia Street. The letter contained a lot ofmisinformation that we would want to respond to in detail if there was any sign that citycouncillors were seriously considering Mr. Noble’s request that this matter - which is nowbefore the courts - should be discussed in a political forum. At this point, however, we wouldjust like to provide you with the reasons why we believe councillors should decline to review anissue that has already been determined by due process at the Ontario Municipal Board, theCommittee of Adjustment and Provincial Court.

The facts are briefly as follows:

1. Long before Mr. Noble purchased the property at 120,Amelia Street, the OMB endorsedan agreement between the original owner of the property and neighbours who wanted tolimit the size of any new development to a scale appropriate to the neighbourhood. Theagreement stipulated that the development would not exceed 2,000 square feet of livingspace. This stipulation was included as a part of the OMB’s decision on this matter.

2. When Mr. Noble began constructing his house, we were assured that his plansconformed to the agreement. /“’

3. As soon as he began building the second storey of his garage, various people on the 13street contacted city hall to check whether he was still following the plans he hadsubmitted.

4. City building inspectors responded and it is our understanding that a stop work order wasissued.

5. Mr. Noble continued building the extension to his garage, completed it and has so farfailed to modify it to comply with the OMB decision.

6. It is our understanding that charges were laid in connection with this.7. Mr. Noble appeared before the Committee of Adjustment with the request that be granted

a variance and not be required to modify the structure that he had erected in defiance ofthe city’s orders. The committee determined that it did not have jurisdiction to reopen thematter because it could not change an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

8. Having been told by the Committee of Adjustment that he could appeal the decision tothe Ontario Municipal Board, Mr. Noble apparently did not take advantage of thatopportunity.

9. By his own admission, Mr. Noble has pleaded guilty to violating a stop work order andhas been ordered by the courts to lower the roof of his garage by May 21 of this year.

As you can see from this synopsis, the matter has been thoroughly considered andadjudicated both by the courts and in the appropriate planning bodies. The property is stillsubject to a court order and Mr. Noble is apparently asking you to intervene in this dueprocess. ,I” -

Mr. Noble’s letter contains allegations of prejudice and conflict of interest against a city official lc3and an elected representative. In our view, they are patently absurd, but our opinion is

07/05/2002

Page 2 of 2

obviously not relevant here. It is not clear from the context whether he is making formalcomplaints in this regard or merely offering self-serving excuses. If these are formalcomplaints, they should surely be considered in a formal process and not as an addendum to adiscussion of his property concerns. If they are merely excuses, he had ample opportunity tobring those issues up before the Committee of Adjustment or Provincial Court. In either case,we suggest that councillors should not be considering them at this time.

Mr. Noble’s letter goes into great detail about his contributions to the commun‘ify in the field ofreal estate and sports. We would like to point out that the numerous Amelia Street residents,who oppose his actions and are appalled by his disregard of city work orders, have all madesubstantial contributions to the community in fields such as law, medicine, business,education, social service, media, sports and voluntary activity. More to the point, they all paytheir municipal taxes and respect city by-laws. They all support the actions that the city hastaken so far in enforcing its planning regulations and thus maintaining respect for the integrityof the process. It would be unfortunate, if this process were now to be sidetracked bydiscussing it in a political arena.

For all the above reasons, we would urge city council members to receive Mr. Noble’scommunication without taking any further action. In the event that councillors do decide toconsider his request, we would also request an opportunity to make submissions and webelieve that numerous other Amelia Street residents would also want to speak.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Susan Goodman and Kevin MarronII 2 Amelia Street, Hamilton, L8P 2V5

Kevin MarronFreelance JournalistPhone: 905-525-7845Fax: 905-525-6634maiIto:marronA~olicvpIanninq.com

07/05/2002

Page 1 of 1

Rawlings, Alexandra

From: James Fyshe bfyshe@cogeco.ca]

Sent: May 1,2002 8:03 AM

To: mgallagh@city.hamilton.on.ca

cc: arawling@city.hamilton.on.ca; mayorwade@city.hamilton.on.ca; smerulla@city.hamilton.on.ca;ahorwath@city.hamiIton.on.ca; bmorelli@city.hamilton.on.ca; ccollins@city.hamilton,on.ca;fdamico@city.hamilton.on.ca; Idiianni@city.hamilton.on.ca; abain@city.hamilton.on.ca; Susan andKevin; Marylyn; Caplan, Marvin

Subject: 123 Amelia Street

May 1,2002

>Dear Ms. Gallagher:

We received a copy of an email dated April 29,2002 by Mr. Noble concerning the illegalmodification of his house design for the premises he owns at 120 Amelia Street.

This letter contains serious inaccuracies and entirely misrepresents the events leading upto hisconviction for disregarding City stop work orders.

It would not be appropriate to go through the details of such inaccuracies and misrepresentationsat this time. However, should you consider his request, we would require an opportunity to makesubmissions to clarify the circumstances in this unfortunate situation, along with several otherneighbours who have been involved in this dispute.

Finally, we take strong issue with the allegations that Mr. Lampton has demonstrated bias in thismatter. Such an allegation is not only without merit, it is an unjustified attack on the character of asenior City official.

Yours truly,1

Jim and Betty Fyshe

I 07/05/2002

Rawlings, Alexandra b

Subject: FW: JAMES NOBLE’S GARAGE

-----Original Message----From: Caplan, MarvinSent: April 30, 2002 456 PMTo: ‘James Fyshe’Cc: Rawlings, Alexandra; Gallagher, Mary; DL - CouncilSubject: RE: JAMES NOBLE’S GARAGE

Sincew I have been accused of a conflict in this matter, I shall neither advise nor comment on the matter. However, sinceyou specifically requested an opportunity to appear as a delligation, I am copying your request and my response to theappropriate staff in the clerk’s department and my council colleages.

--Original Message---From: James Fyshe [mailto:jfyshe@cogeco.ca]Sent: April 30,2002 3% PMTo: Caplan, MarvinSubject: Re: JAMES NOBLE’S GARAGE

Thanks Marvin:

I would also like the opportunity to speak on this matter if Mr. Noble isgiven the chance to address council.

I also hope that this doesn’t happen as a lot of time has been spenton thisalready. This is an OME issue not a City issue.

Thank you for keeping me informed. What do you think about us sending aletter to all councilors in reply to Mr. Noble’s letter.

ThanksBetty