Residents vent their anger over Tottenham Pit bid

By Bill Rea King Sentinel April 18 2012

The recent public session to discuss the Tottenham Pit proposal attracted more than 200 people, and many of them didn’t like what they were hearing.

People voiced concerns for their water and air quality, the process being followed, charges that this proposal is not permitted according to the regulations of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). There were several people angry that the meeting only lasted two hours (from 6 to 8 p.m.) at Palgrave Public School and people were still lined up at the microphone waiting to speak when things broke up.

Brock Aggregates, which owns the property in the area of Mount Wolfe Road and Highway 9 at Lot 26, Concession 10 (Albion), is proposing to increase the existing licensed extraction area.

The session accomplished nothing, as far as Mike Mc- Garrell, who has been an active opponent to the proposal, was concerned.

“They came here to do a throat stuff,” he commented after the meeting. “They weren’t interested in our concerns, they weren’t interested in our questions. They were just here to tell us how it’s going to be.”

“But we will prevail,” he added.

Cheryl Connors, who has also been actively opposing the proposal, wasn’t very impressed either.

“Brock continues to show complete distain for the community,” she said, pointing out two hours was not enough time to have all the concerns raised. She also cited portions of MNR policy that state this application should not be allowed.

“It’s their policy they’re ignoring,” she said. “They’re ignoring the law.”

Consultant Debra Kakaria of MHBC Planning, observed this was the third public meeting held to discuss the proposal, and she acknowledged there’s a lot of opposition in the community. Aggregate operations, she agreed, “are not the most popular land use.”

On the other hand, she pointed out aggregate products are needed for roads, infrastructure, homes, maintenance, etc.

She also offered several background points about the site, pointing out it’s been licensed for aggregate extraction for about 40 years, with an actual operation taking place for 36 of them. There was no mining there in 2003, ‘09, ‘10 or ‘11.

“This is not a new licence and the proposal is not a new use,” she maintained.

She said this application would allow Brock to take material from above and below the water table.

Kakaria also said the existing licence has a maximum extraction limit of 270,000 tonnes of material per year, and she said that contrary to what has previously been reported, that is not going to change.

Site plans are an evolving process, she said, adding amendments usually result in further restrictions.

There have been suggestions that Brock has not been following proper process in this. Kakaria maintained they have gone beyond the requirements of the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA).

“Brock has followed what is required by law today,” she said.

Kakaria also said the current pit licence imposes no limits on crushing material on the site, and is silent when it comes to hours of operation. She said Brock has agreed to limit crushing to just four weeks per year, and set hours of operation, including closing things Sundays and statutory holidays. As well, she said Ministry of the Environment has noise regulations that will have to be followed.

Connors pointed out this is mainly a sand pit, so she wondered what would be there to crush. Kakaria told her there are no plans to import material for crushing, but there will likely be small amounts that need it. “It won’t be used that often,” she said.

She added there are no plans to increase the amount of truck traffic to and from the site.

Addressing water issues, Kakaria said Brock has agreed to survey nearby offsite wells, and will replace wells if it’s demonstrated the pit caused them to fail, and provide temporary water until that can be determined.

In terms of air quality, she said dust control measures will be spelled out, including the watering of internal roads on site. She added a water truck will be on site at all times the pit is operating.

As well, Kakaria said Brock will set up a public liaison committee, with MNR establishing its terms of reference.

Addressing issues involving the Oak Ridges Moraine, Kakaria told Connors this kind of use is permitted, according to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan because it doesn’t involve a new licence. It’s an amendment to a site plan, and that means the process is different.

Connors complained she has been told by real estate people that the value of her property has dropped 50 per cent because of this. She also said she has a son with respiratory problems, and the clean air was one of the reasons why they moved here. She also expressed her anger at have to hire a lawyer to get information from Brock and MNR.

“It’s shameful how you’ve behaved to this community,” she charged.

“I’m sorry this has brought a lot of angst,” Kakaria replied.

McGarrell was also angry that people had to get their own lawyers to prove their wells had been impacted.

“How can we afford that?” he demanded, calling the situation “inhumane.”

Kakaria pointed out there could be other reasons for a well failing.

Kevin Warner, senior project manager with Cambium Environmental, commented that ARA requires a hydrogeological assessment, adding the Ontario Water Resources Act is very strong. “In Ontario, everyone has equal access to water,” he declared, adding one cannot impact on a neighbour’s well.

He added if there’s a problem, MOE can investigate and order those deemed responsible to address the situation.

There were also complaints that the Town has not been doing much to support the residents in this.

There were several Caledon councillors at the meeting, including Nick deBoer and Richard Whitehead (the pit is in their ward), along with some Town staff, including Director of Development Approval and Planning Policy Mary Hall.

DeBoer commented the meeting was held because Mayor Marolyn Morrison and Town CAO Doug Barnes pushed for it.

He also assured the people at the meeting the Town was represented and listening.

Whitehead added the Town realizes it’s going to be MNR that makes the decision. He added council has unanimously told MNR it opposes this proposal.

“We’re behind you,” he told the audience. “We’re doing what we can.”

Tom Farrell, of the Aurora District Office of MNR, came in for some wrath at the meeting. He told Connors this application involves an existing licence on the property and an amendment to the site plan. “It’s not a new licence,” he said.

He also denied that information was being withheld. “Our files are open files,” he told the meeting.