courtesy Barry King and the Cobourg Star
courtesy Barry King and the Cobourg Star
Get the latest
INFORMATION here
Can You Help?
Did you, or are you now
fighting to stop a pit in
your area?
Presentation to Council by Cindy Anthony.
March 09, 2005
Mayor Finley and Council Members:
I am here today because my perception is that Council has been prejudiced in representing the residents, who would be most affected by the development of the proposed S.V.A. pit. Mr. Mike Rayburn's, Mr. and Mrs. Hank Jansen's and my own property have all been re-designated as aggregate resource as shown on Schedule "A" of the New Alnwick Haldimand Official Plan. On page 20 of the Alnwick Haldimand Official Plan, Section 3.18 of Existing Land uses states "Any land use existing at the date of approval of this Plan that does not conform with the land use designations as shown on Schedule "A" as a general rule, should cease to exist in the long term." It is my understanding, when reading this, that any development of my property as far as landscaping, my home itself or any improvements of my home would be of no value because this development should "cease to exist" at least until the aggregate (the only value of the property - according to the Official Plan) has been mined. How does Council plan to rectify the devaluing of resident's homes and properties, as a result of this Official Plan, in regard to realized vlaue and taxation value?
Because of our development's lack of conformance, I feel that it is Council's desire to fulfill their new mandate re: section 3.18 by decreasing the desirability of the living area and devaluing the properties with the establishment of S.V.A. and it's incompatibility (as laid out in the New Official Plan on page 39 Section 5.3.2 Location Requirements (for Rural Residential) "(i) Rural Residential development should preferably be located in areas possessing appropriate physical attributes such as attractive rolling topography, scenic view, wooded setting, adjacent to valley lands or some aesthetic quality."
Page 57, Section 5.8.3 Policies for New or Expanding Aggregate Extraction Operations iv) "As general policy, an aggregate extraction operation for a pit should not be established within 150M. of sensitive land uses. For the purposes of this section, "sensitive land uses" includes uses such as residential buildings, or facilities where people live, and permanent institutional uses such as schools, churches, day care centres, and hospitals."
I would like Council to explain this to me. If I were to try to sell my property, when and if SVA becomes a reality, would rezoning be done automatically, like and easement, with a severance? How would I be able to realize the value of my investment if trying to sell when such expectations have been deemed necessary? There is an inference in this Official Plan that our rights, regarding compatibility, protection of property value, health etc. should not be protected. Is this in agreement with the Provincial Policy in regard to existing development?
In the past, Councils have demonstrated a pattern of not protecting our interests and development, and are the only reason we are in this position now! When the lot we purchased was severed council failed to take the easement requested by hydro. It left us in a bad position because hydro's policy, at the time, required your foundation to be in the ground before they would talk about installation. So after it was too late to do anything about the placement of our home, or the price we had paid for the property, we were left to work it out.
At the time our lot was severed and our building permit was issued the existing Haldimand Official Plan, 1992 said in section (21), pg.93
Waste Disposal
"- where no engineering studies exist concerning a closed landfill, "a waste disposal assessment area is required within 500 metres." (1640 ft.)
- no lot shall be created by plan or land severance except where all applicable policies of the section are addressed
(h) (i) written approval of the MOE that the proposed development is compatible and safe
(h) (iv) "Studies of gas, leachate, and hydrogeology shall be carried out by a qualified engineer".
(h) () "problems identified by engineering studies shall be controlled."Past Councils allowed at least six different severances or dwellings, some of them with wells since the old Turk Road Landfill was closed by the municipality in 1976. At the time there was no record of any engineering studies required by the municipality or any record of assurance by the MOE that these "developments" were "compatible and safe", according to the rules of the existing Official Plan at teh time. I have included a list of these properties for Council.
i) Property roll #040 180 20 (478 Turk Rd.) begins 160 ft. west of the Ruthben Holding Ltd. Property. This makes it 321 ft. west of the landfill boundary: (within the waste disposal assessment area) Part 3 39R3083
ii) Property roll #40 180 10 (470 Turk Rd.) in Lot 6 begins 320 Ft. west of Ruthben Holdings Ltd. property line, or 481 ft. west of the landfill boundary. (within the waste disposal assessment area) Part 2 39R 3083
iii) Property roll #040 219 05 (448 Turk Rd.) in Lot 6 begins 640 ft. west of Ruthben Holdings Ltd., which is 801 ft. west of the landfill boundary. (within the waste disposal assessment area)
iv) Property roll #040 221 00 (489 Turk Rd.) in Lot 6, south of Turk Rd., is also within the waste disposal area. Part 1 39R 1949
v) Property roll #040 221 00 (489 Turk Rd.) was granted a severance of residential lot, according to BY-law 34-2002 Consent B-04/02 (located within the waste disposal assessment area)
vi) Property roll #040 220 10 is located in Lot 6, Con 3, a 10.30 acre parcel described as Parts 1-3, 39R 3505. It is located on the south side of Turk Rd. Based on (iii) distances above, this property is also well within the waste disposal assessment area.
Our home, located at 470 Turk Rd., was one of these. When council learned of the errors they failed to notify the parties involved, even though the necessary studies had still not been completed and council was not certain of our safety! Council is responsible for the safety of all township residents, and following it's Official Plan rules.
Had Council acted according to the Official Plan and not allowed severances and building permits until the studies were complete and approval given, the aggregate re-designation, adopted in July of 1995, would have been in place and Council, if following the Official Plan, should not have allowed the severances and building permits for some of these developments, of which ours is one! In a previous letter to Council I suggested that they should provide the findings form the necessary studies and assurance by MOE. That our developments are deemed compatible and safe. As yet, I have not seen any such documentation and would like to know when Council could supply it. I would like to know if the studies addressed the possibility that waste could be in two separate areas. According to Survey Plan 39R 9607 it shows the "old Turk Road Landfill" to be Part 1 on "part of lot 6, con #3, with a size of 3.12 acres." Yet, an excerpt from a September 1975 Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Limited solid waste study of the County of Northumberland identifies this landfill on page 3-5 as "Site No.14" one of two landfill sites in Haldimand Township, located in Lot 5, Con III for usage by the hamlet of Vernonville." To my knowledge only the lot 6 location has been explored. Both locations should be looked at, as Mr. Peters "admitted having an unlicensed waste site and recycling operation on parts of Lots 5 and 6 in Con 3 of the township between March 1990 and February 1991." as recorded in a newspaper article by Valerie MacDonald, entitled "Heavy fine dumped on illegal waste site". This information was disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.
When Council decided to make the re-designation, they chose to ignore the Official Plan policy again by ignoring the lack of 150 metres between the potential pit area and home owners, of which we are one. And finally, in the New Official Plan, on page 20, section 3.18 Council has decided that our development should "cease to exist".
Repeatedly Councils have failed to protect our development and present Council has now declared a preference for aggregate development over our development in the new Official Plan.
I feel that this is a blatant disregard for our rights and development as well as the other residents involved by the re-designation of their properties, namely Mr. Mike Rayburn and Mr. and Mrs. Hand Jansen. As well, other property owners within 150 metres, of the re-designated lands would now be affected by non-conformance to the Official Plan. How many residents' developments is Council putting at risk? how can Council justify these actions?
My confidence has been shaken! Why would I believe Council will protect my home now? Could it be that government policy and Council have placed aggregate interests above my own personal and the public's interests? We have been disadvantaged in protecting our homes, health and way of life!When Council's Official Plan is seen to be prejudiced in the developing of By-law amendments and serving the rights of the residents, who should be allowed to decide the outcome?
I want Council to know that I am making a formal complaint as to the changes Council has instituted to make my property non conforming with the new Official Plan, as well as Council's lack of consideration for existing development re: page 57 Section 5.8.3 of the New Official Plan, when making the re-designation. I would also like to know why we were not informed in writing of the re-designation of our property at the time. I am adamantly opposed to the development of the SVA pit, the rezoning of the pit property, the lack of desire to protect the existing develoment and Council's choie to make present development non conforming with the intention that it should cease to exist! I would also like to reserve the right to come before Council in the future if I find anything else relevant in this regard.I want Council to know that I understand that the re-designation of the Jansen, Raybeurn and Anthony properties could be seen as an attempt to support SVA inoffering us a way out of this untenable situation, but that if this is the case, this offering only serves to perpetuate the unbalanced, immoral system in place. This system works for the economic benefit of a "chosen few" rather than protecting our human, natural and aggregate resources for the greater public benefit. The current policy approach to guaranteeperpetual access - to aggregate resources does not support rational choices between competing land uses on the basis of what best serves the long-term public interest. Aggregate extraction, by it's very nature is a destructive process having negative social impact, as well as adverse effects on ground water resources and it is presently not being effectively controlled it's basic incompatibility with other development has increased. An excerpt from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2002-2003 Annual Report, on pages 30-31 states "In Ontario, the Aggregate Resources Act, administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources, requires aggregate operations to rehabilitate sites once the extraction phase is over. However, evidence indictaes that land is being degraded at a faster rae than pit and quarry sites are being rehabilitated. For example, provincial data indicate that from 1992 to 2000, an average of 1064 hectares oof new area was disturbed on an annual basis, while over the same time period an average of only 449 hectares of land was rehabilitated each year. Over this time span, approximately 5,500 hectares of degraded land has accumulated due to aggregate extraction."
"In 1992, MNR published a "state of the resource report" on aggregate resources in southern Ontario, stating that "... the Aggregate Resource Act represents a major step towards addressing environmental concerns and ensuring effective rehabilitation of pit and quarry sites." The 1992 report also suggests that the monitoring of licensed aggregate sites over the next five year period should begin to demonstrate the effects of teh new Aggregate Resources Act on rehabilitation." Evidently, MNR was anticipating that a greater amount of rehabilitation would occur. Regrettably, this has not been the case, and unless the rehabilitation rate improves significantly, the validity of the "interim land use" concept in the aggregate sector will be a serious concern."
I want Council to realize that they are part of this problem and are capable of being part of the solution. Change is effected slowly. People have to be willing to stand up and acknowledge what is right long before it becomes a reality!
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Cindy Anthony
Please note an i-dem follows, concerning points for review of SVA materials.
In reviewing SVA materials, I have noticed that well records in Appendix B of the study "Groundwater, Surface Water and Aggregate Resources Assesment - Shelter Valley Aggregates, Alnwick Haldimand Township", by Garner Lee Limited, is incomplete. Ours for one is not among them, nor is Mr. Rayburns, Mr. Todd Marions and I am sure there are others missing. As well on page #4 of the Acoustics Engineering Limited report, Table 2- Predicted Worst Case Shelter Valley Pit Noise Impacts, our home is not shown as a receptor, yet homes to either side are!
In "Section 2.2 Water" of the Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies states
2.2.1 All planning authorities will provide comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach for the protection, improvement or restoration of the quality and quantity of water by:
a) utilizing the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for planning
b) addressing potential negative impacts, including cross-jurisdictional and cross-watershed impacts;
c) identifying surface and ground water features and areas necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the wateshed;
d) identifying restrictions on development and site alterations:
1. to protect all municipal drinking water supplies
2. to protect, improve, restore sensitive surface and ground water features and their hydrologic functions;
e) maintaining linkages and related functions among surface and ground water features, hydrologic funcitons and natural heritage features and areas;
f) promoting efficient and sustainable use of water resources, including practices for water conservation and sustaining water quality; and
g) ensuring stormwater management practices which minimizes stormwater volumes and contaminant loads, and maintain or increase the extent of vegatative and previous surfaces.
2.2.2 Development and site alteration will be restricted in or near sensitive surface and ground water features such that these features and their related hydrological functions will be protected, improved or restored."I do not feel that this has been done adequately based on the report Re: GLL 21-418- Groundwater, Surface Water and Aggregate Resource Assesment - Shelter Valley Aggregates, Haldimand/Alnwick Township. On page 4 of the report under "Site Setting" it states "the permeable sand and gravel soils underlying the site permit relatively rapid infiltration and, as a result, there are no well-developed surface water drainage courses on the site. At certain times of year such as spring thaw and/or during major storms, there may be some overland runoff from the site, but otherwise the precipitation at the site mainly contributes to groundwater recharge."
On page 6 under "3.3 Hydrogeology and Water Use" it states "As noted previously, most of the precipitation at the site infiltrates into the ground and moves downward to recharge the water table. Figure 3 is a contour map of the water table elevations based on borehole water levels and extrapolated water levels determined from test pit logs, groundwater seeps and topographic elevations. These contours define the shallow groundwater flow directions, as illustrated by the arrows in Figure 3. There is a groundwater high in the centre of the site, centered on the topographic high of the esker. Numerous off-site groundwater seeps surround the esker, providing baseflow for small streams."
On page 8 of the same report still inder section 3.3 it states
"The MOE has records of five water wells within 200m of the site property boundaries, four of which are drilled wells. Of these five private wells, all obtain their water from sand and gravel layers within the overburden." It goes on in section 4.1 "Quality and Quantity of Aggregates" to define "Overburn: Surficial earth materials (topsoil, silty deposits) that will normally be stripped from the reserves prior to extraction operations. For this site, there is an average of 0.6m of overburden based on the Blue Circle test pits."
On page 9 in section "4.3 Groundwater Table Elevations" it states "with aggregate operations carried out entirely above groundwater table, and with not requirements for water takings to process aggregates, there will be no appreciable change in the water table levels or groundwater flow system beneath or adjacent to the site, and current recharge and discharge relationships will be maintained. This has been demonstrated at numerous above-water pits in the province. Therefore, there will be no change in surrounding groundwater resources due to the pit development." I would like to know, which pits demonstrate this and be advised of their individual topography and drainage to see if their other characteristics are comparable. Council should have this demonstrated according to mutual expert criteria.
I suggest this to council becuase of a section in the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2002-2003 Annual Report on pages 30-32 stating "Operators of pits and quarries remove virtually all vegetation, and topsoil to reach the aggregate underneath. By necessity, this also removes any natural habitat that may have been on a site, and disrupts any pre-existing streamflow. Aggregate operations invariably create new final grades on the land, and alter drainage patterns. Since aggregate deposits act as underground water resevoirs, once the aggregate is gone, the water storage capacity is lost as well. In some cases a large portion of a stream's volume is derived from ground water, which maintains a "base flow" for streams. Base flow is important, as it often ensures that stream flow is maintained, even in the very dry summer season. Hence, land disturbance from pit and quarry activity can negatively affect flow, even if teh excavation doesn't extend below the water table."
I would presume that neighbouring wells, obtaining their water from sand and gravel layers within the overburdern, would especially be susceptible to this type of disturbance. Not being an expert in this area, I woul dsuggest that council look into this further. A gentleman from "Lower Trent" said at a presentation "the water table mimics the contours of the land." Perhaps this would be an excellent time to use the scale model once suggested, to better understand the concepts involved.
As well I think it necessary for council to recognize that there will be some taking of water in regard to the operation of this pit. Already they have drilled wells on the property and stated that "Water should be used as a primary dust sppressant, when needed." from page 10 of the Gartner Lee report. This development should not be allowed without due consideration of water. The fact that the peer reviews have only supported an operation not taking water is significant in this decision. At least the greatest amount of water allowed to be used before a permit is necessary could be considered.I am also concerned because I am not aware of the depth or outcome of the exploration of the old landfill. I also realize that a large water taking by SVA, down the road, as well as the mining itself could impact leachate from the dump and in turn surrounding land owners. I hope that council will exercise due diligence in this regard and ensure that all findings are explored for accuracy and completeness.
I would also like to comment, at this time, on the table presented on page 17 of the Peer Review the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand Shelter Valley Aggregated Ltd Shelter Valley Pit by Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. This table shows 34 letters were received concerning "quality of life" issues. I feel that in the description of these letters as having "No Reason" the people compiling the review belittle citizen's concerns, and appear prejudiced. It would be more accurate to place these letters with either "Dust, Noise, and Vibration" complaints or "Human Health and Pollution" as EPA recognizes such contaminants as affecting health, enjoyment of property and in turn quality of life.
I hope that Council will find the considerations I have raised helpful. It is my intention to help council, to the best of my ability, to clearly see the whole picture. If council finds any inaccuracies in my submission, I would appreciate knowing what they are.
Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
Cindy Anthony
