Developers upset Ferguson complaint refused

Owners of Sonoma Homes claim the Ancaster councillor “misrepresented” company

A father and son developer team is frustrated that city council’s integrity watchdog is refusing to investigate their “conduct unbecoming” complaints against Lloyd Ferguson.

The owners of Sonoma Homes claim the Ancaster councillor “misrepresented” the company to members of council’s planning committee with “disparaging and slanderous remarks relating to our honesty and integrity.”

Carmen Chiaravalle and his son, Michael, accuse Ferguson of repeated false allegations which, they say, influenced other councillors to oppose granting required variances for an Ancaster condo development, which city staff recommended approving.

“He questioned our integrity and trustworthiness,” said Carmen.

The Chiaravalles have appealed the planning decision, subsequently rubberstamped by council, to the Ontario Municipal Board.

But in a letter that goes before council Wednesday, integrity commissioner George Rust-D’Eye turned down their request for an investigation, bizarrely arguing it’s not his responsibility to “monitor or interfere” with the conduct of councillors during debates. Additionally, because council’s decision is before the OMB, Rust-D’Eye doesn’t believe it would be “proper” to weigh in since his involvement could be “seized upon” as questioning the merits of a planning issue,

Rust-D’Eye could not be reached for comment. It should be noted his letter neither mentions Ferguson nor the Chiaravalles by name. But the dates of the incident and the filing of the complaint line up. The Chiaravalles are appalled by the call.

“It’s an absolute joke,” said Michael, adding Rust-D’Eye’s decision is tantamount to “sweeping the matter under the rug.”

“What’s the point of having an integrity commissioner if he’s not protecting the interests of the public?”

Ferguson is reluctant to comment since he never received official notification of a complaint and isn’t mentioned in Rust-D’Eye’s letter. But clearly he’s aware this is about him. And he wants to make one thing clear: “It’s my job to represent my constituents. Some developers don’t like that, but that’s OK. I get it.” “We’ll see how it goes at the OMB.” The complaint dates to an April 4 planning meeting at which Sonoma Homes was seeking official plan and zoning bylaw amendments so they could build a threestorey 19-unit condo at 125 Wilson Street East in Ancaster.

Ferguson is not a member of the planning committee but spoke against the application. Noting the project was originally supposed to be a medical clinic, he suggested that idea was “abandoned” and the owners were now trying to take “advantage” of already granted variances.

Among a bunch of other things, Ferguson said the developer had “betrayed” his trust and were not “playing fair.” He expressed concerns that the project’s big windows were suitable for “striptease” and implied they were “sneaking” around cutting down trees.

In a point by point refutation of the “false allegations,” the Chiaravalles say the medical clinic proved unviable so the project was changed to residential. They say Ferguson’s “striptease” comment was “sexist and offensive” and full of innuendo, and they note they had the city’s permission to take down the trees.

The Chiaravalles contend Ferguson’s comments violated council’s code of conduct, “damaged” their reputation and raised concerns about the fallout when Sonoma Homes brings other projects forward for council approval.

If that’s not worthy of an integrity investigation, they wonder, what is?

It’s a good question. Rust-D’Eye’s point about the OMB may be sound. But his position that it’s not his role to monitor the conduct of councillors during debates is a headscratcher. Who else can the public appeal to if not council’s ethics watchdog?

There’s also a troubling matter of timing. The Chiaravalles filed the complaint May 9. But it’s taken until October for Rust D-Eye to respond. Did it slip his mind that the integrity bylaw stipulates the commissioner “shall” respond whether or not to conduct an inquiry within 60 days? Because by my count, he took more than 150.