Sent: 16,2011 PM To...From: Chrisanne Finnetty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: December 16,2011 3:34 PM To: Reid, Carol Subjeck Aggregate Resources Act (AM) Site plan

From: Chrisanne Finnetty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: December 16,2011 3:34 PM To: Reid, Carol Subjeck Aggregate Resources Act (AM) Site plan Agreement

Good afternoon,

At the December 13,2011 Council Meeting, Council passed a resolution regarding an amendment to an Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) Site Plan on the Tottenham Pit, submitted by the applicant Brock Aggregates Inc. located at Part Lot 26, Concession 10 (Albion) in theTown of Caledon.

A copy of the letter that has been forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the report are attached.

Regards,

Chrisanne Finnerty Council/Committee Co-ordinator Administration ~ e ~ a r t m e n t I Town of Caledon T: 905-584-2272 ext. 4208 1 F: 905-584-4328 [email protected] I www.caledon.ca

This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The content of the message is the property of the Corporation of the Town of Caledon. The message may contain infonnation that is privileged, confidentiai, subject to copyiight and exempt from disclosure under applicable iaw, if the reader of this message is not I t e nlc'o 1rc IULIV ?ill , C . J ale no! fed lnzl an, u s s o l n a ' c l o si- b.1 an ccp, ng or 1'03 I <.sic? of lri s n :ssagi s s r :.., ,pro1 "#::,a i i f9.i na\e ece .ea i? s nesszge .i in<,( 6 east 161 I , i r ~ se!luti qinleo 210, a>. E np 31 !! e siuc., 2-3 or. ctc. in s rnes~3:iil ; . i i l o~ i l i?aKlg 3 ccp, (irf,r$.la'orl ,e ale3 lo 1.i s m a ' s a.:ci13al :z , r'lon i 0 . c ~ ai.2 f;coi3tc ai J l l c ?,,.lo.?: 8 1 3,

be required to be disclosed by the Town to a third party in certain circumstances). Thank you.

REFERRAL 'TO RECOMMENDED DIRECTION REQUIRED RECEIPT RECOMMENDED

L._..i^.-. -

TOWN HALL 631 1 Old Church Road. Caledon. ON L7C 1J6

December 15, POI 1

Ministry of Natural Resources Attention: Honourable Michael Gravelle 300 Water Street P.O. Box 7000 Peterborough, ON KQJ 8M5

Dear Minister Gravelle:

RE: Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) Site Plan Agreement Applicant: Brock Aggregates Inc. Lot 26, Concession 10 (Albion), Town of Caledon

At the regular meeting of Council held on December 13, 2011, Council passed a resolution regarding an amendment to an Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) Site Plan on the Tottenham Pit submitted by the applicant Brock Aggregates Inc. located at Part Lot 26, Concession 10 (Albion), Town of Caledon. The resolution following was adopted:

Whereas there is an application by Brock Aggregates for an amendment to their Aggregate Resources Act site plan on the Tottenham Pit; and

Whereas fhe Ministry of Natural Resources acknowledges that this Aggregate Resources Act site plan amendment is to be considered "major" and significant in the changes to the existing extraction footprint both above and below the water-table almost tripling the size of the exposed water surface; and

Whereas the amount of the extraction will amount to over 4,000,000 tonnes (500,000 tonnes per year) for 7 to 9 years; and

Whereas there are strong indications that the extraction to date, being a much smaller operation than that which is proposed, has interfered with the wafer table, damaged the natural hydrology, and infetfered with private wells; and

Whereas all of the properties 'in the area depend on private wells and there is no alternative municipal water service available; and

Whereas the applicant is proposing to continue to engage in extensive drag-lining and crushing on site, both operations representing heightened environmental, noise, and dust concerns; and

S:\LeglslaQve Services\C -CounciRCO3 -Agendas\2011\2011-12-13 RegulariRepoiting OUKRB~.~OC / Administration Department

Whereas there doesn't seem to be any financial guarantee that all conditions and requirements of the site plan or the licence will be met throughout the duration of the licence, the operation, and time of decommissioning; and

Whereas the previous operations did nof live up to their requirements and there was no apparent action taken by the Ministry; and

Whereas the Town and its citizens were assured at the time of the last amendment in 2000 fhat this would end the pit's useful life and that the pit would then be decommissioned and rehabilitated; and

Whereas, a pit operation of this size and duration is likely to have a negative effect on real estate values in this estate residential area; and

Whereas the Pit has remained inactive for many years and has not been rehabijitated as promised; and

Whereas the pit is contained within the Palgrave Estate Residenfial Area, as identified within The Official Plan of Caledon and fhat of the Region of Peel, and this use is not compatible with a residenfial area of this type which relies totally on private wells;

Now therefore be it resolved that the Minister is requested to deny the application for an amendment to the Aggregate Resources Act Site Plan and to order the Pit to be closed, decommissioned and rehabilitated; and . .

Further, if the Minister chooses not to take this advice and is considering the possibilify of creating an opporfunity for more extraction at this site, that the topic be considered as a new application for a new licence and not as an amendment to the current Aggregate Resources Act Site Plan given fhe much larger scope and potential negative effects of this major expansion to the environment, the hydrogeology, the private wells in the area, and the general well being of the area; and

Furfher, that the new licence application process include full public involvement including adequate notice, public meetings and full disclosure of a// pertinent information; and

Further, fhaf the comments contained in the staff report DP-2011-064, be considered to be the minimum level of conditions that must apply to any new approval; and

Further, that Caledon recommends that ail of these conditions must be met before any operation is allowed to resume extraction; and

Further, that Caledon be provided with regular reports that demonstrate that all conditions are being adhered to during the operation of the site; and

Further, that Caledon be notified of any infractions and be advised of what remedial action is faking place; and

Further, that Caledon is given the right, upon reasonable notice being given, to enter the site at any time to make its own observations regarding compliance; and

Further that a public liaison commitfee be established that requires the operator to meet with residents, staff from the Town, Region, applicable Conservation Authority and MNR on a regular basis to address concerns; and

Further, that should fhis matter proceed that a comprehensive rehabilitation plan be implemented in accordance with the Greenbelt Plan; and

Finally, that given the information above, that no final decision be made until all matters identified are considered and the community has been given a full and fair opportunity to act upon the matters; and

Further that a copy of Report DP-2011-064 and the Resolution be forwarded fo Nottawasaga Conservation Authority, Toronto and .Region Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Sylvia Jones, MPP, Town of New Tecumseth, Region of Peel, County of Slmcoe and Township of King.

Also at that meeting, Council received a report from its Development Approval and Planning Policy Department regarding this development application. The following resolution was also passed by Council:

That Report DP-2011-064 regarding an Amendment to Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) Site Plan Agreement, Brock Aggregates Inc., Lot 26, Concession 10 (Albion), Town of Caledon be received; and

That Council request the Minister of Nafural Resources, Honourable Michael Gravelle, that, if he approves the ARA site plan amendment, the follotking conditions be imposed as part of that approval:

I . obtain detailed information on and establish a baseline data for all private wells within a I km radius and such other areas considered to be within the zone of influence to serve as a base for the evaluation of the effects of the pit on local well waters should the need arise;

2. put in place a compreheniive well water moniforing program (including insfallation of monitors on private wells subject to permission from residents), that will assist in the evaluation of the impact of the aggregate operations on the quality and quantity of private wells;

3. revise the site plan drawings to identify the 15 metre setback requirement from Sideroad 25, an unopened road allowance between Lots 25 and 26, Concession 11 (Albion) in the Town of Caledon;

4. provide documentation (reporf/studyj satisfactory to the Town related to the potential social and environmental effects of on-site crushing and the mitigation measures that would become part of the Site Plan or demonstrate that there are appropriate mitigation measures related to crushing in the existing ARA site plan (dafed May 25, 2000). Costs incurred in the review of all necessary reportslstudies fo be borne by the proponent;

5, construcVinstal1 and maintain, in good condition, fencing on the property boundary, in particular, between fhe pit and the Right-of-way and as specified in B(1) of the current Site Plan that was approved on May 25,2000; and,

6. provide a concepf~~al plan for the affer-use of the pit fo show compafibility with existing and future land use as designated in the Town's Official Plan.

That Council hereby requests the 'Minister fo amend the Aggregate Resources Act and/or its associated Reguletions to include requirements for notification to area residents other than through the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBRJ Registry in the review of major sife plan amendment applications; and

That a copy of fhis report along with the resolution be forwarded to the local Member of Provincial Parliament (MPPJ, the Ministry of Natural Resources and its Aurora District Manager, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and

That a copy of fhis reporf and resolution be forwarded to the Clerks of the Region of Peel and County of Simcoe, the Town of New Tecumseth, and ihe Director of Planning of the Noffawasaga Valley Conservafion Aufhorify for their information.

A copy of Report DP-2011-064 is attached for your reference. If you have any questions please contact me at [email protected] or 905-584-2272 ext: 421 8.

We look forward to your support in this matter.

Yours truly,

Karen ~andry! Director of Administration/Town Clerk

e-mail: [email protected]

Attach.

cc Carolyn Woodland, Director of Planning, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Chris Hibberd, Director of Planning, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Carol Reid, Clerk, Region of Peel Kathryn Smyth, Clerk, Township of King Cheryl McCarroll, Clerk, Town of New Tecumseth Sylvia Jones, MPP (~ufferin- aled don) he Honourable ~athleen Wynne, ~ in i s te r of Municipal Affairs and Housing The Honourable Jim Bradley, Minister of Environment Brenda Clark, Clerk, count; of Simcoe

Report DP-201'1-064 TOWN OF CALEDON

To: Mayor and Members of Council

From: Director of Development ~ ~ p r o v a l & Planning Policy

Meeting: December 13, 2011

Subject: AMENDMENT TO AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT (ARA) SITE PLAN AGREEMENT BROCK AGGREGATES INC. PART LOT 26, CONCESSION 10 (ALBION) TOWN OF CALEDON

RECOMMENDATION

That Report DP-2011-064 regarding an Amendment to Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) Site Plan Agreement, Brock Aggregates lnc., Lot 26, Concession 10 (Albion), Town of ,

Caledon be received;

That Council request the Minister of Natural Resources, Honourable Michael Gravelle, that, if he approves the ARA site plan amendment, the following conditions be imposed as part of that approval:

1. obtain detailed information on and establish a baseline data for all private wells within a 1 km radius and such other areas considered to be within the zone of influence to serve as a base for.the evaluation of the effects of the pit on local well waters should the need arise;

2. put in place a comprehensive well water monitoring program (including installation of monitors on private well subject to permission from residents), that will assist in the evaluation of the impact of the aggregate operations on the.quality and quantity of private wells;

3. revise the site plan drawings to identify the 15 metre setback requirement from Sideroad 25, an unopened road allowance between Lots 25 and 26, Concession 11 (Albion) in the Town of Caledon;

4. provide documentation (report/study) satisfactory to the Town related to the potential social and environmental effects of on-site crushing and the mitigation. measures that would become part of the Site Plan. Costs incurred in the review of all necessary reportslstudies to be borne by the proponent;

5. constructlinstall and maintain, in good condition, fencing on the property boundaj, in particular, between the pit and the Right-of-way and as specified in B(l) of the current Site Plan that was approved on May 25, 2000; and.

6. provide a conceptual plan for the after-use of the pit to show compatibility with existing and future land use as designated in the Town's Official Plan.

That Council request the Minister to amend the Aggregate Resources Act and/or its associated Regulations to include requirements for notification to area residents other

Report DP-2011-064 Page 1 of 8

Report DP-2011-064

than through the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry in the review of major site plan amendment applications;

That a copy of this report along with the resolution be forwarded to the local Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP), the Ministry of Natural Resources and its Aurora District Manager, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs; and,

That a copy of this report and resolution be forwarded to the clerks of the Region of Peel and County of Simcoe, the Town of New Tecumseth, and the Director of Planning of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority for their information.

On May 17, 201 1 Council passed resolution 2011-310 directing staff to prepare a report which'outlines the Town's concerns with the application that was submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resource by Brock Aggregates Inc. under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) to amend an existing site plan agreement for its Tottenham Pit. Tottenham Pit is located.at the intersection of Highway 9 and Mount Wolfe Road (Schedule A).

As a response to the issues raised by residents about this application, Council directed staff to meet with area residents to seek input and determine their concerns. Two Community Meetings were held, one on September 22, 201 1 and another on November 22, 201 1. Based on the concerns expressed by residents and the lack of direct consultation with area residents the Mayor of the Town of Caledon sent a letter to the District Office of the Ministry of Natural Resources on September 28, 2011 asking the minister to defer action on the application until ample opportunity has been provided for input by residents (see Schedule B).

This report outlines the Town's primary concerns with this application including the lack of direct consultation with area residents as part of the ARA site plan amendment process.

DISCUSSION

In a letter dated June 24, 2009, Brock Aggregates Inc. informed the Town and other commenting agencies that it has submitted an application to modify an approved ARA site plan agreement. The existing above and below water-table pit operation was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) on May 25,2000, as License No 6677.

MNR confirmed that the site plan amendment is to be considered "major" as significant changes to the existing extraction footprint, both above and below the water-table, are proposed and that approval of the amendment is expected to extend the extraction area of the pit by 9.6 ha for a total of 25.3 ha (62.5 ac). And, at the proposed extraction rate of 500,000 tonnes per year, the life of the pit could be extended by approximately 7-9 years.

A hydrogeology study was submitted in support of the proposed amendment. In accordance with the ARA site plan review process, the Town, Region of Peel and the


Report DP-2011-064 TOWN OF CALEDON

applicable conservation authority were circulated on this amendment application as commenting agencies with the Ministry being the approval authority.

Prior to providing comments on the proposed amendment, Town staff consulted with the Region of Peel and both agencies agreed on a coordinated review approach. On December 3, 2009, staff representing the Town, Region, MNR and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) met to discuss the amendment application. A number of issues were raised at the meeting and in subsequent letters that were forwarded to the Ministry dated January 27,2010 and 21,2010 (see Schedule C).

Public Notification:

The Town and Regional staff have expressed deep concern about the public notification method in the existing ARA site plan amendment process in that it does not promote direct consultation wih area residents. In response to staff comments, poi pointed out that the notice of the amendment was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (as EBR #010-8427) for public review and for a commenting period that started in November 19,2009. Comments on the posting were to be received by January 4, 2010.

The Town considers the current notification method that relies solely on the EBR to provide information on a major ARA site plan amendmeni to be inappropriate as a form of public notification. EBR posting is internet based and seems generally to be geared to tech-sawy audience rather than to the general public. Although the internet is becoming an effective communication tool, it is not universally accessible to many in the rural areas. In many parts of Caledon, the technical challenges to accessing the internet remain a problem for residents wishing to check public notices that could be of interest to them. Therefore, the rigid adherence by MNR staff to the ARA notification through EBR posting for this application rather than the adoption of more effective methods to communication with area residents is seen as a fundamental flaw in the ARA site plan amendment process.

The Town raised similar issues with the ARA site plan amendment process in a letter to the Minister dated June 6, 2000, and requested actions to amend the Act (see Schedule D). Over a period of 10 years, the process is unchanged and the Town is again forced to deal with the issues it dealt with years ago on the same aggregate pit. As a host community the Town residents are directly affected by many of the negative impacts of aggregate operations. As a result, the Town considers it inappropriate to make changes to an aggregate pit without seeking the input of residents who bear the direct negative impacts of the aggregate operations.

In view of this concern for public engagement, the Town met with Brock Aggregates on June 29, 2011 urging the proponent to meet with area residents to present the proposed amendment and discuss the potential effects of the pit's operations on private well water, local traffic, air quality, etc. The Town believes that by engaging in a meaningful dialogue with residents the proponent could provide answers to pressing questions about the operation of the pit and input from residents may be used to determine how to minimize potential conflicts and mitigate negative environmental impacts.


Report Db-2011-064 TOWN OF CALEOON

Rehabilitation & After-use:

The site plan amendment presented by Brock Aggregates also includes a revision to the . existing Rehabilitation Plan for the Tottenham Pit which shows a large "lake" as the afler-use. Currently, the problem created by the existing lake on the subject lands is overwhelming for the local police as they continue to fend off intruders into the private property. The Town is concerned that creating a permanent lake as afler-use will exacerbate the current situation.

At the said meeting with Brock Aggregates on June 29, 2011, it was pointed out that the final Rehabilitation Plan as presented is inappropriate for the area noting that the proposed use of the land (as a lake) afler the extraction of aggregate is incompatible with the Town's vision as expressed in the Official Plan for the area which is within the Palgrave Estate Residential Area.

The Town has stressed that Brock Aggregates and other operators need to recognize aggregate operation as an interim use with the final use of the land being of paramount concern to the municipality when developing any final rehabilitation plan. To this end, the Town sees missed opportunity in not using this site plan amendment process to have a meaningful dialogue about progressive rehabilitation and after-use. Staff is of the opinion that the amendment process should be an opportunity for Brock Aggregates to work with the Town and area residents on developing an appropriate afler-use for the pit. An appropriate rehabilitation plan for this area could make valuable land available for estate residential use.

Community Meeting #I

On September 22, 201 1 a meeting was convened by the Town to allow area residents within a 1 km radius of the subject lands to meet with the proponent, staff of the Ministry of Natural Resource, Region of Peel, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and the Town, review supporting documents for the application, ask questions and provide their input on the application. The meeting was attended by over 100 residents, with a major~ty expressing concerns about the impact of the aggregate pit on their quality of life The issues and concerns raised are summarized below (see Schedule E for details):

1. Impact on private wells: The area is not serviced by municipal water, as a result residents rely on private well for their water supply. Residents are concerned about the impact of the pit on the quality and quantity of the ground water. Residents have also testified about appreciable decline in the quantity of water over the years.

2. Monitoring of well water: Although the level of water in the pit is monitored regularly as required under the current site plan agreement, residents feel that private wells in the area should also be monitored to determine effects on quality and quantity of water. Besides monitoring private well, residents raised a more pertinent question about what could happened iflwhen the quality and quantity of well water were compromised.

3. Propedy value: The impact of the aggregate pit on the value of the private residences was discussed. Residents are unsure whether they can be compensated for loss in property value due to the location of the pit in the neighbourhood.


TOWN OF CALEDON Report DP-2011-064

4. Social Environment: The impact of traffic on area roads was also discussed. There is concern that increase in activities related to aggregate operation will result in an increase in the volume of traffic and noise.

5. Dust Residents are concerned that increase in the level of dust or airborne particulate matter due to the aggregate pit would be detrimental to public health and result in increase in respiratory ailment.

6. Rehabilitation & Affer-use: There is concern that the operator has be negligent in the past for failing to comply with work related to the progressive rehabilitation of the site as required in the current agreement. Similarly, residents have expressed concern about the large lake that would be created post extraction. The fact that the operator has not coinplied with the fencing of the site as required by the current Site Plan is troubling as the lack of fencing is possibly contributing to issues of vandalism and trespassing due to the current lake on the site. The Town is' concerned that the large body of water, the aiter-use, would be incompatible with present and future land use under the Official Plan.

7. Other lands owned by theproponent Residents speculated that lands to the south of the pit, which belongs to the proponent, mayalso be used as a pit. They require assurance that the adjacent lands,would not be used as an aggregate pit.

8. Inconsistencies: residents have pointed out a number of inconsistencies in the information provided by the proponent to residents including. the size of pit, nature of the operation, credibility of the hydrogeological study and assessment of impact on surrounding wetland. Residents are concerned that a number of issues remain unresolved to their satisfaction.

Community Meeting #2

Towards the end of the meeting on September 22, 201 1 residents expressed displeasufe about the conduct of the meeting noting that the Town has not provided ample opportunities for residents to fully provide input on the application. A second meeting was proposed and held on November 22, 2011 with notification provided to residents within 2 km radius of the subject site. Participants at the first meeting felt that it was necessary to increase the notification area as the zone of influence of the pit was considered to be greater than the original I km radius.

The issues noted above in meeting # I were reiterated at this second meeting. In addition, the following two new issues were discussed:

1. On-site Crushing: The proponent provided information confirming that the operation at the subject pit would involve on-site crushing. This new information about the pit was a source of great dissatisfaction for residents as on-site crushing has environmental implications including potentials for increase in the level of noise and dust. Staff has review the existing Site Plan and finds no information related to on- site crushing. The operator must demonstrate that the environmental implications of on-site crushing are taken into consideration in studies conducted as part of the Site Plan amendment application. Generally, studies provided by proponents in support of aggregate pit applications document potential effects and specify mitigation measures. These measures are often documented in the approved ARA Site Plan.

2. Fuel Handling & Storage: Residents are concerns about contamination of the site and potentially, private wells due to fuel handling and storage containers that have


Report DP-2011-064 TOWN OF CALEDON

been abandoned on the site. The proponent has confirmed that operations on the site with regards to fuel handling and storage are under stringent government regulated program wnich includes a spill conlainmenl plan and other condition documented in F(1,2 and 3) of the existing Site Plan Agreement dated May 25, 2000.

Details about issues discussed at the second meeting are contained in Schedule E

Approval of Amendment to Site: Plan

The Ministry of Natural Resources receives and reviews comments from all agencies and determines whether to grants approval of the site plan application. Throughout the whole process, the Town of Caledon is a commenting agency.

Town staff contacted the Ministry during this review to confirm the status of the amendment application. As part of the municipal review the applicant revised the amendment application to request a zero metre setback from Sideroad 25, an unopened road allowance between Lots 25 and 26, Concession 11 (Albion) in the Town of Caledon. The said right-of-way is currently under license to the Oak Ridges Trail Association as a hiking trail.

Town staff is reluctant to support a zero meter setback for reasons of safety and the protection of the corridor for future use. A 15 metre setback is therefore recommended.

Of all the issues identify above, the concerns about the potential impacts of the pit on private well water is most troubling for residents. It appears that a lot of the questions on the effects on the quality and quantity of well water remain unanswered and area residents are skeptical and unsatisfied. The Town too is concerned that majority of the questions and concerns by residents have not been addressed adequately.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Not applicable.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The legal implications of this report are contained in other sections of the report.

NEXT STEPS

1. Forward information gathered at the community meetings to the Minister of Natural Resources and its Aurora District Manager. This information containing issueslconcerns of residents would serve as basis for the review and decision on the ARA site plan amendment application by the ministry.

2. Staff report back to Council on the decision of the minister regarding the ARA site plan amendment application by Brock Aggregates.



COMMUNITY BASED STRATEGIC PLAN

GOAL 1: Partner with Land Owners and Community to Preserve, Protect and Enhance our Environment and Agricultural Resources and Natural Capital

Province of Ontario, Aggregate Resources Act Town of Caledon Official Plan

CONSULTATIONS

Staff of the Region of Peel and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.

ATTACHMENTS

Schedule A: Location Map. Schedule B: Letter sent by Mayor Morrison dated September 28, 201 1. Schedule C: Letters to the Ministry of Natural Resource dated January 27, 201 0 and

January 21, 2010. Schedule D: Letter to the Minister of Natural Rekources dated June 6, 2000. Schedule E: Meeting Notes from Community Meetings held on September 22, 201 1

and November 22,201 1.

CONCLUSION

The Town is frustrated with the lack of direct public consultation in the ARA site plan amendment process, particularly since similar concerns were raised by the Town in 2000. For over a decade, the province did not act on the Town's request to amend the process as expressed in a letter to the then Minister of Natural Resources dated June 7, 2000.

The Town strongly feels that the complexity of this ARA site plan amendment application results in a number of concerns by the Town Council and residents. Council represents an engaged and progressive community and wants the best public process for its residents. With regards to aggregates, Council believes that seeking the involvement of area residents is the key to the successful operation of pits within the municipality. Thus, and in this case in particular, the site plan process presents an opportunity to work with the municipality and the community in providing a more compatible use of the land in the future. Averting the use of the land for a lake will help to eliminate enormous policing challenges on the private property.

The Town considers the limited consultation with residents to be a missed opportunity to resolve issues related to the operation of the aggregate pit. Therefore the Town recommends that:

- the Minister amend the Aggregate Resources Act to allow for direct notification of area residents on ARA site plan amendment applications other than, or in addition to, through the EBR Registry.



Also Town Council recommends that if this application were to be favourably considered, approval should be conditioned.on the terms listed below:

1. The applicant revise the site plan drawings to identify the 15 metre setback requirement from Sideroad 25, an unopened road allowance between Lots 25 and 26, Concession 11 (Albion) in the Town of Caledon;

2. The proponent obtain detailed information on an establish a baseline data for all the private well water within a 1 km radius (or an appropriate land area considered to be the zone of influence in accordance with the hydrogeological report) to serve as basis for the evaluation of the effects of the pit on local well waters when the needs arise;

3. put in place a comprehensive well water monitoring program (including installation of monitors on private well, subject to permission by residents), that will assist in the evaluation of the impact of the aggregate operations on the quality and quantity of wells;

4. provide documentation satisfactory to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Town related to the potential social and environmental effects of on-site crushing and the mitigation measures that would become paft of the Site Plan. Cost of the review of necessary reportslstudies to be borne by the proponent;

5. construcf/install and maintain in good condition fencing on the property boundary between the pit and the right-of-way as specified in the current Site Plan; and,

6. provide a conceptual plan for the after-use of the pit to show compatibili& with existing and future land use as designated in the Town's Official Plan.

The proposed conditions are intended to provide a high level of safeguards ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to mitigate potential negative impacts that might be associated with the aggregate operations.

I

Prepared by:

Name: Mary Hall Title: Director of Development

Approval & planning Policy

(L, , ,kc4,- hpproffed by: Name: Douglas Barnes Title: Chief Administrative Officer


Schedule 'A' to Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 1 of 1

Pt. Lot 26, Con. 20 ALBION Town of Caledon Region of Peel

I

Date: July 2011 m To Amend the Site Plan Agreement

Brock Aggregates Inc.

File No. Location Map DP-2011-054

TOWN OF CALEDON

905584.2272<415S[ 1.888.CALEDON 1 FAX 905584.4325

ixce 3 Schedule '0' to Development Apuroval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 1 of 2

September 28,2011

Ms:& Deb: Pelia Keen District Manager Aurora District: (GTAJ - Mineral Aggregate Resources Ministry of Nataral Resources 50 ~bcimin~ton ' Road. West Aurora, ON 14G 3G8

Dear Ms. Peila Keen;

RE:: Ap@iigdti6il fdi site, pl&rs~&endnid&nf,, ii,Fix. .

&li%efler theAgggegat.@. . . . Re?paUfceq:g$t (daW.3 Bibkk Ag~e@ft@& (To$i;enham elf].,

I wwla like tlj, biing your imkedist6 Ejtt&#ion ~6 issijgs. . . , ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;. . . . . . . . . :-.:**

r6l;ited ti, 3 site plan amendment ,app[rea$j;g.n. for th'g ~a~en@*a:m: pig lo<afed i? thefiwti .o€da!$?$brii: . . .

,..

On June,.~4,, 2(P09:, Brock:Agg,regates i@f~;;"@&a the TdihJ,h tfi%t jt:hars $~ljmitt;&di,,ajl:,~ijpdca$~t~ m@ly .,lir..~, ti,n:,appfb\iefl ,qgg.@tj$:re ge$fjQfc$$ f&m.] ,$i,f$:..~1~ri-i$B;tHi$ Mifij$yt of- ~ a t ~ r a i ':~g$dq.p~e$:~(@fl~),. ?.h&$,u b j ~ @ I&&$, a:tq::rg$,$tgd.a$ the s&&east;corne.r of rilount (&!&if& Ro'Cftqnd . . . HiQhwavS. ." ,,., ;.. . . '1 ,The, li;kense..t.@. aperate.the exi$ti~g: ab~v&&ad . ..$sta :below.w$it.&- .............. ,%. . .

", ......................... i,. fa!$@. pit op,erat~gnl @aS~.3r:Giite@ @$ti-@ p~8yjnce::o.n. ... May ZS, 2000;;ag. ~ ; & e ~ $ @ Nd,, 6@xJ?: ... . ; . i : . . . ..* . . .

;:

The.prop05.e~ site pIBn :amendmeni::,woul@;.!G~,a.rgethe. . , ., +:>~,::: . exisq"g sxtr&ian,,erga, by:9;6; 82 cz.$ i. 7 1 .......... fbr 3; ci)talz af

........ : ..: , ...... J. " . 23 3 @& (,52:5‘,$& T,@$ ;c(jfrefit extra9t!pn@e$,i$ iiii~ ps,7 :"., . . . '$5 . ? . I '7 . . .

$;qji ~it;Fi:&~ exfrqGtibn rgt,gqf 593;@:4!9 toon;g$pe yeaqthe prope~qd a.men,d~{,nf is $xpeqgd:toieitend ttre lifi &fhe:.pjt by ,appro~~m&ely j-gyears~,?

Towe Council and residents. haye 3 n,umk%e:@$3f cail,Cern$. &itb this amendme& . . . . . . . . ,.. . . application dqe to 'its pg&$lex/ty; @ti @ap 17;. 2011 ~ ~ ~ ~ d ' i passed a res&flon d.ir$f&g,staffb prepare a: rep.ot-t . which outlines the, iown%"concerns. with- the.sit$ amendinetit @ i-ol&3$. ,c6uri6i;l.;$jsb @ fe,.. & staffto hold a meeting with area resi8erit@:jjh,e *&rator,

i review agencies, and staff '6f the Ministiy Gf Nafui-Ejl Resources.

Schedule '0' to Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 2 of ZPage of MS. . Pella Keen

On September z2, 20.11, tRe Tow0 held a. COmmORify Meeting: fo provideopportunityfor residepts ta iedrn more about the project and to. ask questions. ?he meeting. was attended by bv&i 100. residents who raise4:.a: number of Issues inchding, in partiular, questi.oriS about the impa:cts of tl-je pit on existing wells. The meeting, j?iogre.ssed beyond the schedufed closing erne with m;arijr of the issues of concern to restdents unresdved.. ihere ibs :a strong, feeling off"rustr$tion among. residents whd!'$continue to be seriously c6jicerried abput the pit. Pis a r$s+ltgfth.e. many unansweretl questbn~, the Towri, has p ~ o & ~ k d anotkiei. community meeting to aiiow the oper+t~if&~roviie: , .*. , :. @#pert resources to answer some of these pressit?g. questions.

T~@J@ CO,u,@cil , ~ ~ f i & ~ & f i t ~ a0 Gngaged .~:+.@~@gr,&siv& >,::,*!:\. . ., . :

commy~ity;and \~ant~:t&; b~!st..'a~g[i~ p:r~g$ss for i/t$ resicfents. With partikuiar:regqrds .'iy:a~gg;c$~,a$$~~ 'cgp:$cl! b&ii:&v@~thaijt seeking: fh.e inv&j&ment;o@t&& is,,

. .% . , ...,. :!!I:.%.. a'n impijfignt i(@.yilf@';tb& $ & - ~ g s ~ f ~ ~ Opera&JsQn of 'pits;, witfiin th6,~m.",.ficipa~j5vi . ... . . . . . , , .i@8fef@re, I . ,am. . . ..: a$+$21 , . , f j * *$jist.$'fij. ..,,?;>;:.is ...... : copsii3er patticihatiOg . ~ $ . 6r do-hijjtirig th;e;.n;~qfi;,cpm:&LI'fljE$ meerihg. be . . s c f ~ e i & ! i p . .." . . , . i .,,..p.G: : .. t,bg, (??d: bf"0ctb&Cer, and to dek&p .conskjeratibn of;~~;!s..appiic&&bn ~" t j l t ~ g ~ g$,@,;&~:~g~$@,~ep:,,~@j;~;, EG: 3!$,$$$ ~ ? $ ? $ $ I ~ ; ' C & ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ @sjd@nt$ $nlj:i@@efptQ$ fjjg ~pp~@ju@ifv f,@$,$i&fi;$r @i,aK$je...

. .

CC! S~e.V@$ $:@Q@?j+ Ministry of Natifal Resource$ Eini:l b i b , chair, ~ ~ ~ i ? $ of Fg@j ' . .

Richard whitehead, ,Reg., ~ b ~ n ~ i l l . o r ~ ~ ~ o w ~ oFda~ed~on Ni& &$jOer, Area ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j o ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ n #Caledon Daus B $ ~ , @ ~ $ CAO ~ ~ ~ f i of ,~$J,&o;~' ;

8:. . . . , , Mary . . . Halli Dlf&ctpr, VeQ. Appr&BI &@lanning p d ~ y ,

Kennedy Self, Region of peel. Chris Hibberd, No&. Valley conservafion authority Haitling Xu, Managerof Policy, Town df Caledon

Page 1 of 3 Schedule'C'to Devlapment Approval 8 Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064

Januaty 27.2010

TOWN OF CALEDON

(pdf copy of signed letter sent by small to)

TOWN HALL 631 1 Old Church Road, Caledon, ON L7C 116 9055842271/ 18B(I.[AIEWW /rrx90SS84.43E~wrakdoo o

Ministry of Natural Resources 54 Blwmington Road W., R.R. #2 Aurora, Ontali0 L4G 3G8

RE: ARA Site Plan Amsmlment (Major) Bmck Aggregates Inc. (Tottenham Pit) Pait Lot 26, Conceuion 10 (Albkin) Town Of Caledon

Dear Mr. Alex SmiVt:

Further to our meeting at ihe Region of Peel on December 3,2009, we are prodding the following mmments on the above noted application.

Aggregate operal~ons, by Wir nature, have signifcant impacts on area residents. As a result, it is expected hat the pmp~~enls should be required to demonsbate that anticipated negative impads resulting from increase traffic, noise, visual issues and dust ca7 be mifgated satisfactorily. In reviewing this ap$ition, the Ministry should lake into consideration the following concerns raised by the Town of Caledon and should ensure that

1. The pmpMlenl demonstrates that appropriate nolice has been givento allow area rssldents the opportunity to provide input on the applicahn. The Town is interested in receiving information about the responses by area residents asa result of the mfjce circulated by the proponent;

2. The pmpanent has sabfacbrily resolved all issues related to culture and archaeology, dusts, noise. visual, and hydrogeology;

3. The rehabilitath plan includes detailed information on the orowsed use for the subiect lands when extraction is compieted. It is noted that the Oak Rages h i e Trail passes through ihis area. Therefore, tha Town recommends that the proponent explores the potentials of trail localion in this area.

The Town of Caledon is working with the NoHawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) to renew the potential impacts on the adjacent wetland, watercourse, surrounding f~es ts and water wells (Natural Environment Assessment). The findings of these reviews will k submiHed lothe minishywfien they are ready.

Although the license area for this aggregate operation remains the same, expansion to the extracton area is, in w r opinion, likely to create additional negative impacts on area residents. Therefore, it is appropriate that the applicant be required to demonstrate how it proposes lo mitigated potential negative impacts.

/ Planning & Devdopment Department

- - Schedule 'C' to Devlopment Approval & Planning Policy Report OP-2011.064 Page 2 of 3 .

The Tow hereby expresses its continuing interest in working with Ule proponent, Mlnistry and Region of Peel to ensure hat issues that have been identified are satisfactorily resolved.

Yours truly, .k?::- .-

dhil&ein, MURP; RPP; MClP Senior Policy Planner

Copy sent by email:

Debra Walker, MHBC. Woodbridge, Ontaria Office Chris Hibberd, Natlawasaga Valley Conservation Auhrity Kennedy Self, Region of Peel Ryan Vandenburg, Region of Peel Mary Hall, Town of Caledon

Scheduie'C' to Devlopment Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 3 of 3

IF Region cf Pcd N o h k i ~ ~ for i~au

January 2 I . ZO LO

Re. ARA Site Plan Amendment (Major) Brock Aggregates Inc. (Tottenham Pit) Part Lot 26, Concession 10 (Albion) Town of Catedon

Dear Mr. Smith.

Further to our discussion on December 3". 2009 for tlie Brock Aggregate lnc. - Tottenham Pit ARA Site Plan Amendment. Regional staff offer the following comments

Tl~e Region of Peel expects a high standard of technical studies regarding the expansion of the Tottenham Pit, as stuff considers the expansion to be development. For this reason. the Region requests:

* A Natural Environmental Assessment r An updated Hydrogeology Report

Further to this, the Region requests that there is public notification for the expansion to the aforementioned pit. as this expansion will add additional y e w to the pit, which nffects those living within a close proximity of the pit.

The Region of Peel is currently in the process of undertaking a Memorandum of Understanding with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA). The NVCA will work with Regional staff to provide technical expertise in order to protect Core Are& and to ensure there is adequate review of Environmentally Sensitive, Areas. As was previously smted in the Town'of Cafedon's letter dated October 5,2009, the potential impacts on the adjacent wetland, watercourse, surrounding forests and water wells are of particular concern. ,

lfyou have any questions or concerns, feel free to conmct me at any time

All the best

Ryan Vandenburg, Develapmcnt Services

Public Works 10 Peel Crntrc Drive. Suite A, Bnmprun. ON LGT :B9 releyhoar: N5-791-i800/www.perliegir~n.ca

- L I

Schedule 'D' to Development Approval &Planning Policy Rep Page 1 of 3

THE CORPORATION OF THE

TOWN OF CALEDON

Via Fax (416) 314-2216

June 6,2000

( Honourable John C. Snobelen i

I Minister of Natural Resources i 99 Wellesley St. W., Room 6630

j Toronto, ON M7A 1W3

I i I Dear Minister Snobelen:

Re: Site Plan Amendment Application Dufferin ~e~re 'ea tes ' Tonenham Pit -- - Lot 26, Concession 10, former Township of Albion

1 request that you give your immediate attention to the serious disregard for the appropriate and

( responsible processing of site plans under the Aggregate Resources Act ("ARA"). The recent handling by staff of your Ministry of the site plan amendment application by Dufferin Aggregates at their Tottenham Pit has had serious disregard for the following: '

1 .) The agreed to contract that, in effect, was entered into between the Town, your Ministry, the aggregate producer, and the public when the official plan amendment for the expansion of this pit occurred in 1989;

I 2.) Rehabilitation requirements, dust control requirements and provisions for Town monitoring and I approval of implementation of the site plan that were incorporated into the ARA site plan and which

Town Council relied on in approving the 1989 official plan amendment; and

3.) The protection of groundwater in the Oak Ridges Moraine and the possibility of pollution from the refueling area at the pit.

Staff of your Ministry reckntly approved a site plan amendment under the Aggregate Resources Act ("ARA") for ~uffer in Aggregates' Tonenham Pit. This approvaloccuned despite the Town of Caledon continuing to have very significant objections and concerns with the proposed amendment.

I am also advising you of the Town's extreme concern with the fundamental weaknesses of the site plan amendment process under the ARA and the need to amend the Act to address these weaknesses.

631 1 Old Church Road. Box 1000. Caledon East. Ontario LON 1EO Telephone: (905) 584-2272 e-mail: [email protected] Fax: (905) 584-4325

Visit our Web Site at www.town.caiedon.on.ca

. . . .. .

schedule 'D"fo Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 2 of 3

Minister' Snobelen June 6,2000 Page 2 of 3

I have included our staffs latest report to Council concerning the Tottenham Pit site plan amendment. On October 19,1989 the Town of Caledon approved an official plan amendment to allow for the expansion of the Tottenham Pit, then owned by Gormley Aggregates Ltd. This approval followed a public consultation process during which the public expressed concerns, in particular, for the possibility of groundwater contamina.tion and dust problems. The heightened potential for these sons of problems were due to the particular circumstances of this pit which included below water table extraction on a portion of the pit and the fact that the material being extracted was primarily sand. The applicant acknowledged these particular circumstances and proposed special mitigation measures that were designed to control or reduce the risk that such problems would occur. The Town approved the official plan amendment on the understanding that these mitigation measures would be implemented.

Dufferin Aggregates acquired the Tottenham Pit in the early part of 1997. In November of 1997 they made application for a site plan amendment under the ARA that proposed to eliminate or reduce the special mitigation measures that the Town had relied on in approving the official plan amendment nine years earlier. When the site plan amendment was pre-circulated by the applicant's consultant in July of 1999 and when MNR formally circulated it in February, 2000, the Town repeatedly expressed its opposition to such an amendment. We indicated that such changes would have to be properly justified, then reviewed by the Town and found acceptable to the Town before they were incorporated into the approval of the site plan amendment. The minor changes that have been made to the proposed site plan amendment between pre-circulation and circulation do not go nearly far enough in addressing the Town's concerns. The Town also felt, in light of the public involvement associated with the official plan amendment of 1989, that the public should be informed of the evolving ARA site plan amendment. Since there are no requirements under the ARA for public consultation, the Town took it upon itself to organize a community meeting. The Ministry was advised of and invited to attend this meeting.

On May 15,2000 the Aurora MNR staff advised that, not only would they not be attending the community meeting, but that they were preparing the documentation that would approve the site plan amendment despite the Town's continuing concerns and objections. Town staff again indicated that they felt that this action by MNR was totally inappropriate under the circumstances and provided several examples of why certain aspects of the site plan amendment, including elimination of rehabilitation landscaping requirements and a planting schedule were a big step backwards.

On May 23,2000 the community meeting was held and attended by approximately 30 members of the public from neighbouring properties. This attendance is indicative of the concern in the community with the operation of the pit and the proposal to weaken the assurances provided to the community via the ARA site plan. At that community meeting representatives of Dufferin Aggregate advised that they had been consulted on further changes to the site plan amendment which MNR were proposing to make and indicated that these further changes would help to address the Town's concerns. These further changes to the proposed site pian amendment were never circulated to the municipality. When Town staff called MNR on May 25,2000 they were advised that there was little point in MNR circulating these further changes because the site plan amendment had been approved that same morning.

Schedule 'D' to Development Approval 8 Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 3 of 3

~ i n i s t e r Snobelen June 7,2000 Page 3 of 3

Your Ministry's dismissal of the Town's objections and concerns with the proposed site plan amendment is irresponsible. Their arrogant refusal to allow for public input into the process was C undemocratic and unacceptable.

One of the additional issues raised at the public meeting by the Town was the possibility of groundwater contamination because of the lack of secondary containment facilities around the refueling area. This Ntential problem was not addressed by the site plan amendment and now, because of the premature approval of the amendment by your staff, it can't be addressed by the site plan amendment. Do we need another Walkerton before MNR begins to take its responsibilities under the ARA seriously?

The Town objects to the action of your Ministry and the applicant. Dufferin Aggregates has repeatedly refused to address many of the Town's concerns and objections through changes to the site plan amendment.

How can we approve a future application for an official plan amendment to allow for an aggregate extraction when the necessary social and environmental mitigation measures, which we rely in making

( our decision, may be totally disregarded and obliterated by a site plan amendment agreed to in isolation by the Ministry?

This process must change. The Tottenham Pit situation cannot be allowed to repeat itself. The ARA must be amended to provide for public input and to provide for appeals of MNR decisions that are flawed.

Carol Seglins Mayor

cs. Mr. Rob Merrcrvry, Dirtlid Manager. Aumn Dimin (fax 905-713-7360) The Honourable David Tilson, MPP ( f a 519-941-3246) The Honourable Jim Wiiron. MPP (fax705-435-1051) Thc Honourable Michael Hmir (fax 416-325-3745) Membsn of Colmcil W. Wiegwd, CAO H. Kancfat. Dinmr of Planning & Dsvciopmaot

Schedule 'E' to Development Approval & plaAng Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 1 of 17

Tottenham Pit Community Meeting Notes September 22,2011

Palgrawe Community Public School

NOTE: This meeting notes intended to reflect the discussions at the meeting hove been grouped

into the vorious topics of the discussion during the evening. It is not intended to be o verbotim

note of the meeting.

Attendees

Town council: Mayor Morrison, Councillor Richard Whitehead, Councillor Nick DeBoer

Staff - Steven Strong Haiqing Xu Ohi lzirein Kennedy Self Jennifer Maestre

Chris Hibberd

Proponent Debra Kakaria Domenic Suppa

Ministry of Natural Resources

Town of Caledon Town of Caledon Region of Peel Region of Peel

Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Consultant, MHBC Planning

Brock Aggregates

I Introduction I 1 Councillor Richard Whiteheid welcomed resihents, staff and attendees to the meeting. His I opening remarks included details about the procedure for the evening and expected outcome j

of the meeting. He advised that this was not a statutory public meeting; rather, the meeting has i i been convened at the request of the Mayor and Area councillors to provide opportunity for the

i operator t o presentdetails of the proposal, for residents to ask questions and express issues I

and concerns. He further advised that information about the meeting will be sent t o the ministry t o inform their decision making process. He also confirmed that contrary t o the

prevalent information in the community, no decision on the site plan application has been

made.

Councillor Whitehead thereafter introduced the provincial representative, Steven Strong t o

provide details about the site plan application process.

Steve Strong confirmed that the application was submitted by Brock Aggregates in 2008 and was subsequently circulated t o the Town of Caledon and other agencies such as the Region of

Schedule 'E' to ~evelo~ment Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 2 of 17

Peel and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) for comments. The application is not for a new license; rather, it i s an amendment to an existing site plan for the purpose of

extending the extraction boundary (the license boundary would not change). Public notification was through the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) as required by the Aggregate Resources Act

(ARA).

Ohi Izirein, Town of Caledon staff, confirmed that the Town received the application and

provided comments jointly with the Region of Peel and the NVCA. He noted that theTown was

forthright in advising the ministry to consider further consultation with area residents noting that Town staff did not consider the EBR posting to be appropriate notice to residents. Ohi also

noted that in accordance to the requirements of the AKA, the Town is a commenting agency whereas the ministry has approval authority. Therefore, the ministry may consider comments

from an agency but may not act on them.

The A~plication

Debra Kakaria, MHBC Planning, represented the owner, Brock Aggregates. Debra provided details about the application making reference to maps that were displayed for the benefits of

the audience:

A t the meeting, she explained that the amendment would expand the extraction boundary to

25.3 ha from the existing 15.7 ha without changing the depth of the below water extraction. The amendment and expansion of pit boundaries would result in extending the life of the put

for approximately 7-9 years.

Debra noted that the site plan application has provided opportunity for the operator to make a number of site plan improvements, including for example, tighter phasing requirements for progressive and final rehabilitation, provision for shoreline enhancement along pond edge, a

1.54 ha area to be planted during rehabilitation of Phase 1 and enhanced monitoring to better

protect nearby wells and wetland.

1.) Discussions, Questions and Answers Size o f the pi t

MHBC consultant on behalf of Brock Aggregates advised that the Site Plan Amendment application proposes to expand the pond area from 6.18 ha to 12.01 ha with an average depth

at around 15 meters. The increase of the total extraction area would be from 15.6 ha to 16.62 ha (difference of 1.0 ha). Therefore, the majority of the additional extraction involves making

the pond larger versus expanding the approved extraction area outwards.

. - Schedule 'E' to Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 3 of 17

2.) Private Wells

The bulk of the questions related t o the impact of the pit on the quantity and quality of local

well water. There were also a number of comments on well monitoring with some residents confirming that their wells have never been monitored since the pit came into operation.

Residents wanted t o know what would happen i f the quality and quantity of well water in the

area were compromised. Will affected residents be compensated? The consultant confirmed that Brock Aggregates will be responsible for any loss t o the quality and quantity of water i f it

can be demonstrated that contaminated or decrease in quantity is a result of the aggregate operation. I t has t o be proven that the loss or contamination is due to the aggregate operation.

Residents felt that the burden of proof is too great for residents to bear since proving that the operator is responsible may be difficult without the help of a legal team.

Residents asked more questions about weii water: they wanted t o know whether a

predetermined zone of influence has been established for monitoring purposes? Also, how far away does the operator need t o monitor? Residents noted that the bulk o f the water loss or

drop in the level of water in the well may be due to evaporation in view of the large water body. MNR confirmed that the amount of evaporation expected for the pond surface proposed is included in detailed modelling prepared by the hydrogeologist and reviewed by the MNR and

MOE hydrogeologists. MNR staff informed the residents that the Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) hydrogeologist has monitored water level in this area and confirmed that some decrease may also be due t o overall effects of climate change.

MNR staff indicated there is an active monitoring of groundwater level in the area by the MOE. Mathematical modeling by Ministry staff does not suggest a high risk of significant water level drop as a result of the Site Plan Amendment. It is the experience of the ministry that if the

impact on well is localized, it is not likely due t o the operation of a pit. However, if the test i s

widespread, it may be due to the pit. MNR can provide details of the monitoring. However, i n

case of a major impact on private wells, Brock Aggregates will be responsible t o provide temporary relief. MNR will provide an emergency contact and a phone number to residents.

MNR staff also indicated there i s a regular testing for heavy metals by the Ministry. In case of heavy metal contamination in private wells, enforcement of the Environmental Protection Act

will be the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment.

Councillor Richard Whitehead suggested that all wells in the vicinity (i.e. zone of influence) be

tested based on the model adopted by theTown during subdivision approval process. This will enable the ministry to establish a benchmark to measureany fluctuation in well levels.

- - Schedule 'E' to Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 4 of 17

Residents who have observed anv uroblems with their wells have been advised to put their

name and address in a separate uiece of paper so that the Town can send this list t o the

ministry. TheTown wants t o ensure that residents wells are monitored as recommended in the

Hvdroaeoloaical studv.

3.) Dust, Air Quality and Airborne Particles

Residents were concerned about airborne particles associated with aggregate operations and

its impact on health. Residents wanted to know why the Ministry of Health is not involved in

this process?

4.) Land South o f the Pits

it was acknowledged that Brocks Aggregates also owns the land south of the Pit. Residents

were concerned that this land might be used for expansion of the existing pit. Brock's representatives suggested that the land is neither an aggregate reserve area nor aggregate

resource area in accordance with the policies in the Town's Official Plan. Town policy is to

encourage extraction in areas of aggregate resource first and then areas categorized as

aggregate reserve.

It was also pointed out that even i f the owners wished t o use the lands for extraction purposes, a license would be required and the lands would require official plan and zoning by-law

amendments from the Town. Both of these are public processes requiring detailed studies, public consultation and council approval. The fact that the lands are not within the Caledon High Potential Mineral Aggregate Resource Area (CHPMARA) would make approval very

difficult.

it was further noted that the land use designation applying to the lands t o the south (owned by Brock) would permit estate residential community provided servicing was available and technical studies would need to be prepared to support an application (as set out i n the Official

Plan).

5.) Vandalism &Trespassing. Security is a big issue for residents who have observed many incidences of unauthorized people

entering the property for recreation and other illegal activities. Residents living near the pit are concerned about people straying into their properties. Residents alleged illegal activities such

as drug uses, gun shots, etc. They felt that Brock Aggregates is not doing enough t o secure the site. The fact that the pit appears abandoned encourages vagrancy.

The consultant informed the meeting that Brock has taken a number of measures t o secure the site including the erection of fence and blocking the entrance and at some point, hiring security

- Schedule 'E' to Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 5 of 17

guards to monitor the site. Notwithstanding, residents felt that the owners should consider a higher level of security which will include fencing the entire site. it i s noted that Peel Police has

also been very active in policing and handing out tickets for trespassing.

In response to residents complains about trespassing, it was acknowledged that MNR is

conducting a regular patrol with the OPP. Brock's consultant noted that trespassing and

vandalism may become less of a problem if there i s more presence and if owners were actively

carrying out operations on the site.

6.) Propertyvalue Residents wanted to know whether they will be compensates for loss in property value? Will the Town decrease taxes for property owners?

The consultant informed the meeting that the pit was approved and licensed a long time ago,

predating many of the residents. Loss in property value is a complex issue and the operation of a pit may or may not affect value. Residents were also informed that they can contact MPACfor re-evaluation of their property values t o determine if there is loss in value. The assessed value

may be used to determine the new taxes.

The consultant also informed residents that an annual licence fee is required t o be paid by the licencee based on tonnage that is split between the Province, Region and theTown. This fee is intended t o be used for maintenance of haul routes, etc.

7.) Notification There were complaints by residents about the notice of meeting. Residents repeated questioned why only those live within 1 km of the pits were notified, suggesting that residents

beyond the l k m radius should have been contacted as well.

The councillors advised that staff in consultation with the local councillors, will consider a larger

notification radius for the next meeting.

8.) Roles and responsibility Residents questioned the roles and responsibility of the Town in the Site Plan Amendment application, and wanted t o know how theTown can help protect residents. Staff clarified that

MNR is the approval authority under the Aggregates Resources A&, and the Town of Caledon is only a commenting agency. With regards t o this site plan application, the Mayor and the two ward councillors had insisted that area residents be given an opportunity t o ask questions and

express concerns before the minister makes her decision. Otherwise, the site plan amendment

process does not require further public consultation.

Schedule 'E' to Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 6 of 17

The MNR pointed out that the Ministry maintains a reserve fund that can be used t o carry out work should the operator default. However, this is typically usedfrequired for older, abandoned

licences.

Still, residents continue to be concerned why the residents are being involved at the end of the

process when the residents are most affected by the pit's operations.

9.) Traffic Residents were concerned about potential increase of truck traffic. The consultant confirmed that access would continued t o be in the same location (Highway 9) and that there would be no

increase t o the annual tonnage limit as a result of the proposed amendment. Councillor Nick De Boer informed the meeting that Mount Wolf is not a truck route for Tottenham Pit. Truck

routes are generally regional or provincial roads.

10.) Rehabilitation There was concern that the operator has neglected to rehabilitate the site as in the original agreement. Residents stated that it is conceivable that Brock will continue its business as usual and would fail to do progressive rehabilitation. Representative from the ministry stated that the

owner is required to rehabilitate the site as the operation progresses. They are under obligation to do so. There is money set aside t o perform required tasks related to rehabilitation should the

operator go bankrupt or fail in their duties to perform the tasks.

It was pointed out by Brock's consultant that the application for the proposed amendment was an impetus for Brock to bring the site into compliance with'the rehabilitation plan.

Furthermore, phasing has been tightened up on the proposed site plans to ensure progressive rehabilitation takes place before additional extraction can occur. -

11.) Expansion of Pit

Since the pit was been dormant for a while, residents wanted to know why is there a need t o open up the pit a t this time? Why is the extraction area being doubled? Are there plans t o

increase the depth of the pit?

No. the extraction area is being increased with the licensing area staying the same. There is no

plan to go deeper than permitted by the current license.

The consultant explained that this is a private property and that it i s a business decision t o

operate the pit.'There could be a variety of reasons why an operator would determine t o cease

or resume operations.


12.) WetlandIFreshwater

it was pointed out during the presentation that there was a wetland in close proximity t o the

pit. How would the pit affect the wetland and freshwater?

Chris Hibberd, representative from Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA)

confirmed that as an agency, it submitted its comments to MNR for consideration. NVCA

comments addressed impacts of the pit on the wetland. According to NVCA, the possible impacts on wetlands can be mitigated. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has reviewed

the application and feels that the impact would be negligible. Enhanced groundwater and

surface water monitoring has been provided on the proposed site plans to ensure the wetland

is protected.

13.) Conflict of interest Residents were concerned that the data used in the MNR review/approval of the Site Plan

Amendment comes from a professional hydrogeologist, retained by Brock Aggregates Inc., and questioned the appropriateness of this practice. ~es iden t i asked if MNR could conduct i t s own study independent of the applicant. MNR staff confirmed that two other professional

hydrogeologists on staff at MNR and MOE reviewed the assessment and found it t o be acceptable. I t was noted that the experts who prepared and reviewed the assessment belong to respective professional societies which ensure only qualified professionals are licensed to

practice.

14.) Communication

For this community meeting, the Town of Caiedon sent letter of notice to residents within 1 km of the pit. Councillor Nick De Boer encouraged all concerned residents to send their questions to Town staff (Senior Planner Ohi izirein). Staff will synthesize these comments and send t o

MNR.

15.) Next meeting

Due t o limit in time available t o comment and hear ail the issues by residents, Councillor Nick De Boer suggested that another community meeting will be held in the near future t o allow all

concerned residents t o ask questions and express concerns. Mayor Morrison will send a letter to MNR requesting the ministry t o defer decision on the application to allow sufficient dialogue

among the stakeholders.

kg6 ,W Schedule 'E' to Deveiooment Aooroval & Plannina Poiicv Reoort DP-2011-064 . . - Page 8 of 17

Second Tottenham Pit Community Meeting Notes November 22,2011

Caledon Community Complex B

NOTE: These meeting notes are intended to reflect the discussions a t the meeting and os such have been grouped into the various topics that arose in the discussion. It is not intended to be a verbatim note of the meeting.

I I Attendees

Town Council Mayor Marolyn Morrison, Councillor Richard Whitehead, Councillor Richard Paterak, Councillor Doug Beffort, Councillor Allan Thompson. Councillor Nick De Boer sent his regrets.

a f f Haiqing Xu Manager, Policy & Sustainability Ohi lzirein Senior Policy Planner Pamela Vega Heritage and Policy & Sustainability Assistant

Pro~onent Debra Kakaria Consultant, MHBC Planning

Introduction

Councillor Richard Whitehead welcomed residents, staff and attendees t o the meeting. His opening remarks included details about ttie procedure for the evening and expected outcome of the meeting. He also noted that this was not a statutory public meeting; rather, the meeting has been convened because the Town of Caledon believed that a public meeting was needed t o give residents the opportunity to ask the operator questions and express their concerns over the proposed plans. Councillor Whitehead emphasized that it is the Ministry of Natural Resources who is in charge of the licensing process, not the Town of Caledon, and that it was unfortunate that the ini is try did not send any representatives t o the meeting. He further advised that a report on the meeting will be written by Town staff and presented t o Council on December 13, and that no decision will be made until the end of the year and until the Town of Caledon makes their final presentation. Residents were advised to contact the Ministry if they have any concerns over the application.

Councillor Whitehead thereafter introduced Debra Kakaria, representing the owner, Brock Aggreggates.


The Application

Debra Kakaria, MHI~C Planning, introduced herself and Brock Aggregates, and recapped what was discussed at the first meeting. She also explained that the purpose of the meeting was to provide information to the publicon the proposed amendments, and t o pass on residents' concerns to the Ministry of Natural Resources, noting that the first meeting was not well attended. Ms. Kakaria then provided details about the application making reference t o maps that were displayed for the benefits of the audience.

i She explained that the propositions were amendments to the site plan and not amendments t o the planning act, and that the amendment would expand the extraction boundary and not the licence boundary. It was noted that a public meeting is not usually a part of this process, and that public notification was generally limited t o an online notice.

Ms. Kakaria then explained the application process, and emphasized that the amendment

Access from Hwy 9 will not be changed. 3-4 years left on current license without approval for expansion. Surrounding land use: rural residential, agriculture, demolition and excavation, auto repair. Amendment to expand t o above and below ground water. Total increase of extraction area 15.6-16.62 hectares.'~ifference of 2.5 acres. But area below water is increased to 12.01 hectares; difference of 5.8 hectares. Extraction limit isn't expanding outward, but rather deeper. Proposed extension would exfend use by 7- 9 years; no change to max limit of extraction. Level 1 & II level environmental study completed by hydrogeologist; reviewed and accepted by Ministry by their own hydrogeologist. But has unevaluated wet land outside of site. Discussed on-site monitoring (Sx per year), and groundwater levels have also been monitored. Studies show groundwater levels will only be minimally affected. Drag line used, mentioned difference from quarries-de-wateringwould have a bigger effect. 4-5 cm drop at maximum at hottest temp conditions. Assured that surrounding wells could handle this minimal drop. Adjacent wetland looked at-will not be affected. If have questions about hydrogeology, suggested people contact Ministry through writing. Emphasized this because at first meeting, concern for wells was very apparent. Natural heritage will not be affected, not with ecologically important.Wetland will not be affected. Showed map where setback limit has been increased, away from MT Wolfe Rd; and where extraction. limit would extend out-mostly i n sE corner, away from residences. province encourages pits t o be extended where will not have impact-to avoid need t o approve other pits and have further impact. To bring it up t o standard (community benefit, environmental impact), had to make changes t o site plan. Incorporated smaller phases to site than originally approved-previous phase has to be rehabilitated before going t o next phase-to make sure that site gets rehabilitated. Other addition by ministry: shoreline enhancement-before there was no need; now result of proposed amendment, included shoreline enhancement to create habitats. 3.8 hectares to be replanted adjacent to woodland. Also enhanced monitoring, for benefit of nearby wells.


3 observation water wells will be added t o site t o be continually monitored for 3 years; afterwards, 5 times a year. To be made in report and submitted to ministry. Ministry will determine if any problems present. What not changed: max annual extraction, hours of operation 7-6 Mon-Fri, 7-1 Sat, mitigation for noise, dust will remain, no further intensification or additional uses, activities. Councillor Whitehead noted that Region of Peel would also be givingcomments, responses.

e Ohi gives comment from Town. Conservation authority, Region did not send representatives. Whitehead mentioned that Ohi will be making report to Council

Discussion, Questions and Answers

i I 1. Private Wells

The majority of the questions were concerning the possible impact of the pit on nearby private wells, and what would be done i f this happened. Resldents recounted their personal experiences with the pit's effect on their wells and local bodies of water, noting that water levels dropped when the original extraction began.

I ! Residents were concerned that water pressure will drop i f the clay level is disturbed, and that

the residents wouid be stuck with the costs of drilling new wells. Similar concerns were also raised in regards t o the effect of removing overhead on local water levels. Ms. Kakaria

! confirmed that a proper amount of area was afforded around the clay level to ensure that it is not penetrated, but was unsure of whether it was enough for a drag line.

A number of residents wanted assurance from either Brock Aggregates or the Ministry of Natural Resources that their wells would not be compromised. The Brock Aggregate representative said that the Ministry should be contacted if this occurs, and that they would investigate the matter. Ms. Kakaira confirmed that only the wells on-site would be monitored.

I Residents wanted to know the position of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, and if I they had any comments. Ohi Izirein, Senior Planner with theTown of Caledon, said that they : '

had provided tomments regarding the wetlands. The representative for Brock Aggregates I added that, based on their concerns, monitoring wells would be drilled if the amendment i s ! I approved. I

Residents wanted t o know if the water monitoring reports would be made public. The consultant confirmed that the reports wouid be public documents. Residents had doubts that the reports would be accurate, and voiced their concern that the monitoring would be more for show than for accurate documentation.

Councillor Whitehead suggested that the Town's report t o the Ministry say that private wells should also be monitored as on-site well monitoring is not enough, and t o also include a


recommendation that wells be tested first before the amendment goes through. He cited the Region of Peel as an example o f how wells on public property are monitored t o determine off- site effects, and said that this could be mentioned in the report to the Ministry.

Residents outside of the study area were concerned that their wells will be affected but because they are outside of the study area their wells will not be monitored and their concerns will not be heard. They also mentioned that there are empty oil barrels around the pond, and asked if this was being monitored. Concerns over its effect on water quality were raised. Councillor Paterakshared the residents' concern and added that he hoped that Town staff would investigate immediately so that whoever was responsible would be fined. He emphasized that water quality was of utmost importance.

Residents asked if the monitoring reports would only be seen at the end of theyear, and expressed concern that problems would be overlooked until it was too late to correct. Ms. Kakaria advised residents that if they had any concerns they should contact the Ministry, as they would investigate the matter immediately.

Some residents questioned the value of well monitoring because once a problem arises, it cannot be reversed. Ms. Kakaria noted that in the plan it mentions that the licensee is responsible for any groundwater contamination that occurs, and added that groundwater levels are not expected t o drastically change. She also explained that the monitoring reports were done to assess whether any changes are happening differently than was expected, and were used to remediate any changes before they worsen. Residents asked whether Brock Aggregates would be the ones in charge should unexpected changes occur, to which Ms. Kakaria responded that if it is determined that Brock Aggregates were responsible for causing the changes, then yes.

Because no new water will be added t o the pond, residents were also concerned that this would cause the water to stagnate and that the wells' water quality would suffer.

Concerns were raised over the possibility of a fuel spill. Ms. Kakaria pointed out that this was cited in the site plan and that there i s a contingency plan in place by the Ministry should a spill occur.

Councillor Whitehead explained that the Region of Peel has historically been very concerned over the water being taken from the Oak Ridges Morraine, and has been concerned over Caledon-area problems in particular because the Town rests on a large body of sand, which, in terms of water supply, i s a fragile ecosyslem. He emphasized that the Town is not the agency that is dealing with this application; the Ministry needs t o understand that the province has control over the aggregate but that the responsibility for the water remains with the municipality. The province allows mining to occur but takes no responsibility for its effect on the water. He shares the residents' concern over the creation of a large body of water where previously there was none.


Residents spoke o f their experiences thirty years ago with their wells, and the frustration they felt when they were left with the cost of re-drilling their wells. Because there are no historical reports to determine previous water levels, residents were unable to prove that a change had occurred. They asked theTown hpw it would deal with it should it happen now.Counclllor Whitehead agreed that monitoring was only good i f financial compensation was also available, and that the Ministry should be the ones in charge of this, and that the licensee should be held liable. He added that the Region of Peel accepts the financial responsibility, and that the province should take equal responsibility when it comes to licensing aggregates. He added that the aggregate operator should be responsible t o permanently address any problems that arise, rather than the current Ministry position of the operator responsible for oniy temporary relief. He repeated that the level of government that gives the license should be ultimately responsible.

Councillor Whitehead also noted that while ~ l b i o n has two aggregate license pits, this is the only one where the surrounding residences are not on municipal water and thus much riskier. Mayor Morrison suggested that private data could be supplied to the Ministry t o which t o compare any future readings. If the anlendment is approved, Brock Aggregates should be responsible for installing new wells for residents. To enforce this, however, previous water levels would be needed to prove that the wells have been impacted. It was agreed that residents should not be expected to pay for these reports. Councillor ~ h i t k h e a d suggested that current well reading; be taken to create a baseline to which to compare futurereadings, and that this be added as a condition for amendment approval.

Residents asked i f they would be given funds t o install a municipal water line to nearby properties. Councillor Whitehead responded that a recommendation be added t o the report that until municipal water is provided, projects of this type should not be consjdered.

2. Size of the Pit ! Ms. Kakaria, on behalf of Brock Aggregates, advised that the Site Plan Amendment application proposes to expand the pond area, and'that the extraction would go down to the depth of the pond. Residents were concerned that this would double the surface area of the pond.

Because the pit would not be going below the water level, residents were questioning how large the pond would become should the amendment be approved. Ms. Kakaria said that it would be around 2.5 acres in area.

3. Conflict of Interest

Residents were concerned that the data from the monitor wells would be analyzed by a professional hydrogeologist retained by Brock Aggregates Inc, and questioned the

Schedule 'E' to Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 ~ a $ e 13 of 17

appropriateness of this practice. I t was suggested that an independent peer review of the hydrogeological study be undertaken.

Concerns were also raised over the Ministry reviewing the reports. Because they are self. regulated, there was doubt that proper action would be taken should a problem arise.

4. Dust, Air 4ualit)r and Airborne Particles

Residents were concerned about airborne particles associated with aggregate operations and i t s impact on health, and mentioned that no other pit in the Town is as close to so many homes. This was seen as especially concerning because Palgrave has one of the highest densities i n a rural area. Residents were opposed to the possibility of an aggregate being operated so close t o a residential area. Ms. Kakaira explained that this location was chosen because there was still a valid license on the property and that resources were still available to extract, and added that there was mitigation in place t o address the pit's impact on the surrounding area.

It was pointed out that asthma rates are increasing, and that southern Ontario specifically has one of the highest asthma rates in the province, due to the high concentration of industry in the area and in the northern United States. There was fear that the increase in inhaled dust and fine particulate spread will create an outbreak of respiratory disease. The effects o f inhaled dust on the body were described, and it was emphasized that fine particulate is more harmful to the lungs than smog. Concerns were also raised over the effectiveness of the thin fabric over the truck beds in preventing dust from flying out during transportation. Residents mentioned that they have seen large amounts of dust escaping from trucks.

Ms. Kakaria confirmed that a portable crusher would be brought in should the amendment be approved.

5. Operation Schedule

Residents gave personal accounts of the noise and dust that occurred from the pit's previous operation, and noted that it was not uncommon for operations to begin before 7 AM. hey questioned whether this schedule was appropriate, especially on a weekend.

6. Future Use of Land

The question of what the land would be used for once the pit is closed was raised, and residents asked what the current zoning is and i f it would change. Who would own the property once Brock Aggregates are gone? Councillor Whitehead confirmed that the zoning for the property was residential.

Schedule 'f' to Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 14 of 17

Residents asked what would be done with reserve once operations at the pit cease. Could they be used t o compensate nearby residentsfor any loss of property value? Councillor Whitehead said that he would also be interested t o know what will happen to the reserve. He added that if the province accepted liability, a reserve would not be needed. Until then, a reserve must be collected from the licensee, and that a guarantee should be required. He emphasized that these comments should be included in the report: licensee needs t o give guarantee, but that i f it falls through, the province will take responsibility.

7. Town Support I

Because residents of New Tecumseh are also close t o the pit and could also be affected by it, Councillor Whitehead said that after the report is adopted by Council it will be sent to New Tecumseh's town hall to get their comments and endorse before it is sent t o the Ministry.

There was a general consensus that residents did not feel properly supported by the Town on the fight against the aggregate pit. It was appreciated that even though a community meeting was not mandated, theTown held one anyways. They wanted to make sure that all of their concerns would be accounted for in the report.

Residents also wanted to know where the Town stood in terms of support for this amendment. ! Councillor Whitehead said that he personally opposed it, but could not speak for all of council. I If the Town will oppose the amendment, he suggested that requirements should be laid out 1 I should the amendment proceed. He added that the Town has done studies to remove areas I from the aggregate mapping in order to limit aggregate projects in Caledon. No areas are 1

identified as aggregate, there are none listed in the official plan, and this amendment was only proposed because the property held a license for an aggregate pit. If it were not for the license, the Town would oppose this proposed amendment.

Residents suggested that their emails should be collected for the Councillors should they need more support when speaking with the province.

Residents argued that the Town took on responsibility for the water because the original plans for nearby properties included municipal water were later amended to remove this because the well water flow remained good enough that municipal water was not needed. Councillor Whitehead replied that the Town had no position because it is not under their jurisdiction, and that the property owners were allowed t o have wells because it was grandfathered in. The Town will eventually get municipal water up to the area. He emphasized that residents can attend the Council meeting on December 13 as delegates, and that residents will be sent a reminder for this Council meeting. Councillor Whitehead explained the delegation and repor? processes.

kR6 '3 I Schedule 'E' to Development Approval & Plann~ng Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 15 of 17

8. Ministry of Noturol Resources Support

Residents expressed disappointment over the lack of Ministry representation at the meeting, and wanted Queens Park t o know about this disappointment, and suggested.Council request a deputation to the provincial cabinet.

9. Land Sauth of the Pits

Residents expressed concern that the pit will expand to the south part of the property. Councillor Whitehead assured that i f Brock Aggregates wanted to expand, they would require a license amendment and that the Town would not support this. Ohi agreed, adding that the southern part of the property is not part of an aggregate reserve area. The entire town was studied t o identify any aggregate areas, and this specific area was not identified.

o Resident: Brock Aggregates own estate properties in south area? Deb: Brock owns this, but no plans to develop this. Will need various steps to get t o this stage. Will not develop for approx 40 years.

o Resident: at last meeting, told would there be no crushing at last meeting. Why were they lied to at last meeting? Huge different and large health impact. Moved to Caledon for son's health. Deb: existing license, crushing permitted. Said processing at meeting. Resident: said specifically no crushing at last meeting. Very concerned. Whitehead: other aggregate has no crushing. Resident: far more serious. Resident: same concerns raised as in last meeting. When will they be looked at?

10. Rehabilitation

Ms. Kakaria confirmed that the amendment had been changed so that the planting of trees would be implemented immediately should the amendment b e approved.

The residents were worried that land rehabilitation would only be done at the last moment, long after it was expected to be done. They asked if this would be monitored. Ms. Kakaira confirmed that the Ministry would be in charge of this, and noted that in the past this was not required, but that plans were revised to include this requirement.

o Resident: Rehabilitation: has Town looked at plans regarding this? Ohi: entails expansion to water surface, before move to new place. Resident: calls for what? What t o do? Deb: most cases, required t o replant trees in rehab area, and seed down and level area t o specific point, and create shoreline habitat, after extraction completed. Resident: large lake, still being worked on. How does this happen? Deb: done along shoreline, through natural succession, different species will flourish. Resident: no time limit. Deb: linked t o extraction. Can't move to next phase without rehabilitation. Tree planting will be done in initial phases. Will be growing as operation growing t o final phases. Resident: how can ministry allow woodlot to be taken down? Deb: woodlot not provincially or regionally significant. Resident: St i l l in same ecosystem. Resident: st i l l on Oak Ridges Morraine, he


-. ,. can't cut down trees he planted on own land without approval from Oak Ridges Morraine? How come Brock allowed? Deb: approval required from Ministry-ecological value? Can it be removed without impacting ecosystem. That's why it was allowed. Will also be replanted with larger area and greater ecological value.

o Worried about erosion that is already occurring-grass and seedlings cannot stop this.

11. Trespassing

Security is a big issue for residents who have observed many incidences o f unauthorized people entering the property and using the abandoned houseon the west side of the property as a storage place. Residents living near the pit are concerned about these unknbwn people'who are coming and going from this house.

o Whitehead: asked mayor t o conclude Q & A. o Mayor thanked everyone for coming. What we'll do with all the comments and

concerns will be compiled. Staff will write report, bring recommendations t o Council, and Council will deal with it on the 13". Emphasized that residents should make themselves available to comment on them. Report will be presented, then Council will make their decisions. I f Council don't get recommendations and report t o Ministry soon, worried that Ministry will go ahead with their decision without taking Caledon resident concerns into consideration. Need t o take this into account when making this decision. Resident: can we accelerate the draft? Ina week? Ohi: we do have a reporting process, so have to follow this process. Resident: but can get it accelerated, regardless of process, in timely fashion. Mayor: when Ohi writes report, his report goes over by boss, then management committee, with directors and CAOs looking through all reports, then goes before council. Resident: is this #1 priority? Ohi: not about priority. Has been told t o d o this for dec 13 council. Resident: when are you going t o write it? Mayor: not fair to say that. To ohi, may be #1. To his boss, maybe not. Can't determine priority. Perhaps can talk t o managers, and get report released earlier (Wednesday?), get t o public a bit early. Resident: what other priorities is Town working on that would impact so many families? Mayor: for Ward 4, biggest priority. Ward 1 has 3 aggregate applications, huge priorities forthem. Resident: do they have the same public meeting? Mayor: different, have no licenses, so have t o go through huge process. Resident: but they have no deadline. How can we make this #1 priority? To those who pay your salary? Mayor: will talk to CAO on Wed t o ask him if we can have report a little early and get t o public earlier. And then get contact person to get the word out that report is available to residents. Can Ohi do it in time? Ohi: will have t o talk t o manager. Resident: wouldn't it be easier to talk t o those people who are extending licenses? Issuing licenses? Then we wouldn't even need to have meeting. Resident: what is future use of land? No access? Public natural land? No one knows what future use will be. Whitehead: will be

Schedule 'E'to Development Approval & Planning Policy Report DP-2011-064 Page 17 of 17

feature forfuture residential development. Resident: apologizes that meeting got out of hand. Emphasized that Council and Town is on residents side.

Documents

Sent: 16,2011 PM To...From: Chrisanne Finnetty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: December 16,2011 3:34 PM To: Reid, Carol Subjeck Aggregate Resources Act (AM) Site plan