Resending with identifying…

Resending with identifying information removed:
To whom it may concern,

In regards to:
A. Request for comment by September 6, 2019 from Coco
B. ECA sewage amendment by September 16, 2019

A general comment on Community Risk:

The burden of proof, options for mitigating risk and emergency remedial action plans is the Applicants in conformance with Governmental Regulation, not a responsibility of the community.

For the surrounding community adjacent the quarry, any activities that cause or add risk can only be resolved by removing or reducing the risk. I am aware that nothing is without risk, however, it should be understood that the nature of any risk to the community will be met with objection.

In light of this perspective, I have worded my concerns as what they are: concerns for your action.

1. Wells/Aquifers

Previous communications included that the review of MOECC that ‘no impacts are expected’ and the ‘risk[s] … are low’.

As should be clear, from the perspective of the community:

-any activity that has risk is of concern to the community

-the contingency measure of grouting would only occur after the fact in the event of a significant impact causing complaints to be filed

-as there is no fixed date of action between complaint and action: complaints are likely to be met with assuage and delay in hopes that the problem will go away on its own. There is likely a considerable gap in time between initial complaint to contingency measure to any measurable conclusion.

I look forward to reading any comprehensive monitoring and contingency plan.

2. Hydrogeological Impact Assessment

5.3.1 A Water Well Interference Complaint

i. Immediately provide an interim potable water supply (within 12 hours);

ii. Notify the MOE of the complaint (if they are not already aware);

iii. Retain a qualified professional to conduct a site investigation, determine the cause and provide recommendations to correct the problem; and,

iv. If it is found that the water well interference resulted from quarry dewatering and quarry operations, the water supply will be restored to its original condition, or better.

I am unclear if this is a requirement through the PTTW process, or by which level of government, nor who any of the acting bodies are.

This description is quite vague, does not have time frames associated, and no detail as to which parties’ consultants are confirming at which parties’ cost.

Parts of the presentation implied that the quarry would have minimal impact on the surrounding groundwater level, in part evidenced by the lack of current problems. I wish to point out:

a. There are neighbors with no well, no drilled well and/or wells that are long dry and have been abandoned.

b. Based on anecdotal comments from the public meetings, there are past and current well issues that can neither be proven nor disproven related to quarry works

c. The quarry is not at its current licensed depth. Any definitive and/or widespread impacts would not be evident until full depth is first accessed.

Well problems can be a combination of seasonal, climate and other factors, this policy seems relatively open to constant complaint to the applicant. This is a bureaucratic feedback loop that may be ignored by the applicant where viewed as a nuisance. This is a setup for problems.

In one of the presentations it was described that should a catastrophic well problem be encountered and the quarry was responsible for all of the failed wells in the area, that “the quarry would be bankrupt in a month” and therefore would cease operation. This does not sound like a good nor speedy outcome for those with failed wells.

It became quite clear in the meeting that wells can be monitored. It also became evident that they were measuring standing well water elevation, not flow or any other variable residents may be sensitive to.

Further, there is no doubt that a drop in ground water elevation can be detected through well monitoring.

This is not a prevention measure, but rather a process to identify failure once it has happened.

As per http://www.ossga.com/multimedia/9/groundwater2010.pdf:

“Dewatering usually does affect groundwater levels and flow patterns around the site, since it artificially lowers the water table to at least the base of the quarry.”

I do not see so far in the contingency plan any attempt at “…innovative technologies have been introduced in Ontario to lessen the effects of quarry dewatering, such as pumping the water from the quarry back into the groundwater system around the quarry to artificially recharge the water table.”

The berm design does not appear to anticipate this type of method in terms of top of cliff swale introduction.

At the public meeting, a mitigation measure of the cliff face was discussed in a ‘plug the leaks’ concept.

I estimate the built out cliff face of 8,000m on the perimeter. At a height of more than 20m, this is 16hectares of surface to maintain plugs in. This sounds problematic chore to shed onto the last phases of the quarry that may be decades away.

3. Contamination
Previous communications described contamination as ‘not anticipated’ and ‘potential concerns … are negligible’.

As should be clear, from the perspective of the community:

-any activity that has risk is of concern to the community

4. Asphalt contamination
I see no reference to concerns/solutions for asphalt contamination.

As should be clear, from the perspective of the community:

-active/proactive inspection/oversight appears minimal

-conformance is self reported

-inspection/oversight would appear to be complaint driven, which places the responsibility incorrectly on the community

5. Noise
Any standards and/or guidelines would need to be known by the community for there to be any enforcement.

Acceptable noise levels should be clarified to the neighborhood and complaint resolution criteria should be clear.

The noise issues related to the existing quarry are not acceptable. I do not see any reference to improving upon the existing, only to following requirements. Expanding the quarry will not improve the existing condition.

I do not see an answer to the previously posed question: Are there deficient berms currently, and are they proposed to be brought up to the proper standard.

I remain in a frustrated position of not understanding to which governmental bodies one would complain to should there be an apparent violation of noise restriction either during the day or at night.

As should be clear, from the perspective of the community:

-active/proactive inspection/oversight appears minimal

-conformance is self reported

-inspection/oversight would appear to be complaint driven, which places the responsibility incorrectly on the community

I look forward to reading the updated Acoustic report (not circulated) referenced.

6. Ground Vibration
Any standards and/or guidelines would need to be known by the community for there to be any enforcement.

As should be clear, from the perspective of the community:

-active/proactive inspection/oversight/enforcement appears minimal

-conformance is self reported

-inspection/oversight would appear to be complaint driven, which places the responsibility incorrectly on the community

7. Air Pollution
Any standards and/or guidelines would need to be known by the community for there to be any enforcement.

The Air Pollution issues related to the existing quarry and it internal activities such as portable asphalt works are not acceptable. I do not see any reference to improving upon the existing, only to following requirements. Expanding the quarry will not improve the existing condition.

As should be clear, from the perspective of the community:

-active/proactive inspection/oversight/enforcement appears minimal

-conformance is self reported

-inspection/oversight would appear to be complaint driven, which places the responsibility incorrectly on the community

There is very little documentation regarding noxious fumes, their health implication for the neighborhood, nor any limitation of mitigating measures involved whatsoever. There should be no misconception that because dust mitigation measures are supposed to be in place that there is no impact on the neighbors. There should be no misconception that the adjacent properties benefit from the ability to enjoy their property. The properties adjacent the quarry are affected in many negative ways, and the permission granted to operate a quarry and any associated processes should not be taken lightly.

8. Traffic
As should be clear, from the perspective of the community:

-active/proactive inspection/oversight/enforcement appears minimal

-conformance is self reported

-inspection/oversight would appear to be complaint driven, which places the responsibility incorrectly on the community

9. Property Value
A property owner adjacent a quarry is rightly concerned that the quarry proximity effects the saleability of their home. Expansion of, changes to the boundary, improvements to the negative impacts, and timely remediation are all factors in the impact of the value.

10. Phasing
I am interested in clarifying the difference between:

-differentiating the existing license are from the new license area, vs.

-removing the existing licensed area from the application

Regarding Coordinating the activities of two phases of the Quarry: It is my understanding that the planning process would defer to MNR for enforcing the conclusion the existing quarry, the approach to coordinating the two quarries, and the eventual rehabilitation of the proposed quarry. Further, the MNR is unlikely to get involved in the phasing of the quarry works outside of their typical enforcement. This cannot be correct. We cannot allow bureaucratic limitation to allow applicable governing bodies to point fingers at each other, but rather, a coordinated plan should be understood by all. Site plan control should be applied to minimize impacts by all regulatory bodies.

Permitting a rezoning application for quarry adjacent an existing quarry: This will inherently merge the two quarry properties. In doing this, you would be extending the normal lifespan of the existing quarry. Though to the benefit of the applicant, it is to the expense of the existing neighborhood. Inherent in the original quarry’s permission is an agreement to remediate. By purchasing an adjacent property and applying for a new phase, the applicant can effectively proceed indefinitely without any remediation on the remnant lands. The quarry devalues its newly created adjacent neighbors. This permits the ability of the quarry to purchase them below cost, facilitating a new phase. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. At what point do you enforce that they remediate earlier phases? In light of this, the current quarry should be required to be remediated, in its entirety or in reasonable phases, to avoid a circumstance where the entire quarry is active at the same time. Receiving the answer 'we can permit this expansion just this once' is not acceptable. The rezoning of this property does not currently fall into any site plan control component on how the site is phased, unless you require it. I encourage you to preclude a circumstance by which both phases of the quarry remain active. The residents in the area reasonably anticipated that the existing quarry would expire at some point.

Rezoning of the existing quarry: Adjacent neighbors have a reasonable expectation that a quarry will at some point by concluded and rehabilitated. Permitting the 0 side yard to another quarry is the tool by which you will be permitting the applicant to ignore rehabilitation requirements on the existing quarry. By requiring a setback between the two phases, you would effectively be requiring that they be run as two separate operations, and I would hope speed along a timely remediation of the existing quarry, thus unencumbering the existing adjacent properties. I am aware that this is not ideal for the applicant intended plan, but I am sure through adequate site plan control, you can find a method by which to ensure remediation within reasonably achievable time frames.

I am concerned that the expansion of the existing quarry will delay the timely conclusion of the existing quarry remediation, and I wish to ensure that this type of clarification does not facilitate this delay.

11. Hours
The quarry having unilateral ability to run overnight without notice is not supportable.

Municipal Noise bylaws require notice to the community for exemption for a reason, not to be unreasonably withheld. At least in this way the event would be localized in time and notice is circulated.

This would more closely adhere to the intent of the Quarry hours listed in the Municipal noise bylaw.

Many of the other reports may be incorrectly studied at daytime hours only, should there be overtime works the reports should be coordinated in this regard.

These ambiguities serve the applicant to exceed parameters with apparent justification.

12. Governing bodies accountability
I remain frustrated to find little coordination between governmental tiers, nor any coordinated replies. I am confused by the various processes/deadlines in this case. This confusion benefits the applicant, not the community, as there are likely primary stakeholders that will not comment to the right body, nor prior to the associated deadlines. We need to prevent situations of ‘don’t call this governmental body, you need to call this other governmental body’. A simple coordinated FAQ or ‘Who to call’ organized between COK, MNR and MOE would speed along so many of the public meeting sessions we are all listening to.

13. Reasonable expectation of a conclusion date
Many of the diagrams and studies focus on the new application and neglect the overall impact of the quarry. Specifically, 2309 Unity Road is currently adjacent the existing quarry on its eastern boundary. The currently adjacent property owners have been eagerly anticipating the conclusion of the quarry for both inherent benefits and for the opportunity to be free of the planning encumbrances of being adjacent a quarry. Please rectify this oversight in the application

14. Adjacent lands severability
From a Zoning perspective, any property within 500m of the zone will find planning functions such as severance near impossible. This includes a requirement to submit to the municipality for a noise, dust and vibration study. These applications would be likely discouraged by the municipality and by the quarry, in particular if they involve residential in close proximity to a quarry. By comparison, a quarry application, such as this, though obviously fraught with expensive studies as well, is relatively encouraged by various levels of government. The impacts on the new neighbors that will now be encumbered should not be disregarded in respect to their property values. The disparity in the regulatory setbacks highlights this issue, ie: 500m for applications adjacent a quarry, but a quarry application from what I can see has a zero setback to residential.

15. Internal site plan control (Site layout, internal roads)
From what I can tell of both the existing license and the current application, there is very little discussion as to the method by which the work is staged. Though I have no interest in micromanaging their operations, the limitations of where noxious activities occur in the context of existing/proposed residential neighbors should not be ignored.

16. Volume of extraction
Many of the documents and studies refer to a number of tonnes per year, and rely on this for justification of limited impact. Please note that the Application for License to the MNR states that the “Quantity of material to be removed unlimited tonnes/year’. Further, this is on the application drawings (drawing ‘Operation’ the only copy I have is 1.2.27 on page 3 of 4 unsigned). From a public meeting, this is now referred to as 1 million tonnes/year. I note that this is double the current limitation. I am unclear how the various studies were able to confirm no impact in a 24 hour and/or unlimited application. Please confirm the assumed tonnage/year limits each study was based on and ensure that they are coordinated.

17. Pre-blast survey
I am confused by some of the concerns raised around blasting damage to adjacent homes as being unaddressed. Can you please confirm if a pre-blast survey is normal practice? If so, why would this not have been used to mitigate damages through the quarry’s insurance? Again, complacent neighbors serve only the applicant.

18. Current activities
I am unclear why the site is a quarry but also permits asphalt and concrete works. This secondary use has been permitted there for quite some time. I am of the understanding that if the quarry concludes, or is dormant, that the MNR can enforce initiation of the approved remediation plan. As the applicant is describing that the quarry currently “trucks in high quality aggregate as the lower material is of undesirable quality”, then I assume that this is not currently a quarry, but rather a plant. Both are permitted by the zone, so I assume it is MNR that would be following up with a request to remediate the existing quarry lands that are no longer in use. Please confirm.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration in these matters.