Creek blocked over dispute

[Anonymous123]

It didn't originate on his property so how can this idiot claim it's his water?

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/2 ... er-dispute

[dgb]

It didn't originate on his property so how can this idiot claim it's his water?

I think the bigger question is who has the right to disrupt fish habitat and a creek, without a permit, no less. Enter the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

Have a nice day.

[GordonH]

^^^ what are the chances that stream even has any fish in it.
Plus if this stream had any amount of descent flow by blocking it, the blockers area would start to become flooded.
That whole area is swamp land, some of which has been reclaim.

[dgb]

^^^ what are the chances that stream even has any fish in it.
Plus if this stream had any amount of descent flow by blocking it, the blockers area would start to become flooded.
That whole area is swamp land, some of which has been reclaim.

Both very good questions ... (a) depends on how the Ministry defines "fish habitat", and (b) unless the intent was to divert the creek into another water body (which would again require a permit), it is a matter of when--not if--the good doctor's property would flood.

[Bsuds]

^^^ what are the chances that stream even has any fish in it.
Plus if this stream had any amount of descent flow by blocking it, the blockers area would start to become flooded.
That whole area is swamp land, some of which has been reclaim.

There are fish in the Creek and this has been going on for years. This guy has been a real jerk over the years and I believe more than once has been brought to task over it. He used to have a flock of Sheep that would roam free and end up on the Golf course doing major damage to the greens. He's another one that belongs in the "Yer an Idiot" category.

[GordonH]

what are the chances that stream even has any fish in it.
Plus if this stream had any amount of descent flow by blocking it, the blockers area would start to become flooded.
That whole area is swamp land, some of which has been reclaim.

There are fish in the Creek and this has been going on for years. This guy has been a real jerk over the years and I believe more than once has been brought to task over it. He used to have a flock of Sheep that would roam free and end up on the Golf course doing major damage to the greens. He's another one that belongs in the "Yer an Idiot" category.

So how is it not causing flooding of his own property, usually blocking water flow will result in flooding i.e Beaver dam
Well, is fish are being effected then someone in the area should be contacting the Ministry responsible.

[khutchi]

"Cashin contacted Rezansoff Wednesday and was told he thought he had the proper permits. "

How do you even make this error? Anyone who knows this guy previously knows what to think here.... You need multiple licenses from the province (like a section 11 work near water license)

I'm sure he's really sweating bullets when he gets a look at the size of the fines he could face. $200 + $30 victim surcharge... and he might face 4 of them concurrently . The horror.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/enviro ... es_reg.pdf

Reminds me of those two guys who took a chainsaw to that huge tree (on city property) up in Black Mountain. $2000 max fine i think. Real scary punishment

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/2 ... y-cut-down

[WalterWhite]

Just another example of zero consequences for someone's actions. As Bsuds pointed out, there are fish in this channel, and this guy is no stranger to creating conflicts with neighbors. Good to hear Ministry of Environment is involved and looking into the matter, I just hope they hammer the guy and send a message that this sort of thing shouldn't, and won't, be tolerated without consequences.

Curious if he owns the larger parcel as outlined. It's shown as separate properties, however the dirt access roads seem to transverse all properties. If so, there was a large amount of earthwork done a few years ago in the lower left corner along Dehart Rd. that was also unauthorized and a stop work order was issued, and ultimately the property was required to be returned to it's previous state. There is also a fairly large man-made water pond on this same property. Really hope this results in more than just a slap on the wrist for this obvious repeat offender.

[Bsuds]

So how is it not causing flooding of his own property, usually blocking water flow will result in flooding i.e Beaver dam
Well, is fish are being effected then someone in the area should be contacting the Ministry responsible.

I believe he is blocking the Golf courses access by diverting the flow in a different direction.

[techrtr]

Looks like the land owner is trying a put a in great big development that make traffic along Gordon and Swamp even more obscene than it already is.

[WalterWhite]

Looks like the land owner is trying a put a in great big development that make traffic along Gordon and Swamp even more obscene than it already is.

I don't think you'll see development on this particular parcel any time in the foreseeable future. It's second only to swampland, and is in the ALR.

[Urban Cowboy]

This guy needs to be charged with contempt of court, and given a bit of time in the hoosegow to contemplate an adjustment of his attitude.

Given the history it seems this twerp thinks he's above the law and special because he's a doctor.

[WalterWhite]

Actually, looking again at the photo on Castanet, it appears the creek blockage is in the upper left hand area of the photo I posted outlined in red - indicating that this is in fact part or all his property.

ETA: just found this online:

http://apps.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PD ... inutes.pdf

Public Hearing January 26, 1999

Mr. Alex Rezansoff advised he owns the property next to the Mission Sportsfields. He
submitted that a contributing factor to the creation of the Michaelbrook wetland and the
wetland on his property was the City’s placement of fill material on the Mission
Sportsfields property. He expressed frustration that ditches he has dug to try to cope
with the problem are now getting named, including Michaelbrook. If the

ditches keep getting named, with the City’s setback requirements there soon won’t be
any land left to worry about farming. Mr. Rezansoff advised that his property used to be
good farmable land that drained off after the spring. He noted that a solution would be to
pump the water across Gordon Drive but that is not an option because of the need to
protect the Michaelbrook wetland. There has also been talk about removing a 25 ft.
concrete abutment that holds back Thompson Creek but that has not been done yet
either.

**copy/pasted portion slightly altered for clarity.

Seems his beef goes back to the city developing the Mission Sports Fields and surrounding wetlands.

[WalterWhite]

According to the city transcript, he claims to own the property bordering the Mission Creek Sports fields - shown as 4150 Swamp Rd. Online search of 4210 Swamp rd. lists Alex Rezansoff at this address. Michaelbrook golf course is the property shown as 1085 at the top of the image.

[WalterWhite]

Ain't the internet great?

984 Dehart Rd. is shown as being under Sherwood Mission Developments/Alex Rezansoff. He seems to be a bit of a land baron - or swamp-land baron.

https://kelownapublishing.escribemeetin ... mentId=574

https://kelownapublishing.escribemeetin ... entId=4537

https://kelownapublishing.escribemeetin ... mentId=575

- and @techrtr - I stand corrected, as according to these and other transcripts some of this property was/is intended for development as recent as October of last year - the 984 Dehart Rd. parcel in particular, which is the least "swampiest" of the overall parcels.