Background. Pilkington Township is considering an application to extend the Bowman gravel pit. The extension will consume the back 40 acres of Wilfred Shoemakers farm, which is on the Bethel Church Road (8th Line West) between Middlebrook Road and County Road 18.
This parcel of land is mostly Class 1 (good) farm land, surrounding its centre core which is a woodlot and wet area. At the present, the farm land is zoned Agricultural, and the woodlot and pond are zoned Natural Environment, meaning these have been set aside by the Township to protect them from industrial exploitation. The Township is now proposing re-zoning to allow the pit extension to proceed.
This report has been prepared by a committee of concerned neighbours in the area.
This report is submitted to the Township of Pilkington on June 24, 1998 by:
Ric Holt
Marie Holt
Anne Collier
Gordon Collier
Karen McLeod
Harvey Marshall
Joanne Martin
Geoff Guy
History and the Environment. It has been said, "we do not so much own the land as we care for it and pass it on to our children and their children". The question that must be answered regarding this application is to what extent we will pass to the next generations what we have received from our parents and ancestors. The particular site of the proposed pit carries interesting cultural heritage.
Andrews Creek. John Connon, in his book "The Early History of Elora and Vicinity", tells us of previous generations living on this land. The book devotes a chapter to the episode that explains that what we now call Carroll Creek was known in previous years as Andrews Creek. Connon tells us about the unfortunate Andrew Dalgarno, and why the creek was named after him. The event takes place in 1836 at which time Andrew lived "within a couple of miles of Elora". At the time, Pilkington West was largely a trackless wilderness. In Connons own words: "On a Saturday morning, in the month of August, he left his home, carrying on his arm a scythe for the purpose of cutting some beaver meadow grass, for winter provender for his cow." To make a long story short, he got lost in the wilderness for several days, wandered down Carroll (or Andrews) Creek, right past the currently proposed pit site, eventually made his way to the Grand River, and, quite tired and hungry, was eventually rescued. (Incidentally, poor Andrew met an early death when a tree he was chopping down on Mr. Watsons farm fell hitting another tree which fell on him.) At any rate, we conclude that Andrews (Carrolls) Creek and vicinity including the proposed site carry an interesting and documented historical significance.
Original settlements. Among the earliest settlers to this area were two Bosomworth brothers, Christopher and Thomas. (See the "History of Wellington County" by Jean F. Hutchinson.) Christopher arrived in 1845, settled lot 9, con A, and built a stone cottage on what is now the entrance to the Bowman pit on Middlebrook road. Thomas settled on Lot 18, con. 5 (1871 Directory) and built the yellow-brick house which is now Ric and Marie Holts home at 6565 8th Line west. Both of these century houses are still standing and in good shape, and are lived in by neighbourhood families. Unfortunately, one views the old pit and one views the proposed pit extension. The imposition and extension of a gravel pit degrades the very nature and perspective of these venerable old homes in the Pilkington landscape. The back 40 acres of Thomas original farm are the site of the proposed pit. (Descendents of Thomas still live in this same block.) We conclude that the site is part of one of the original settlements in this area.
Original School House. In "The History of Wellington County", Jean F. Hutchinson writes: "Squatters along Upper Pilkington-Nichol Townline arrived in 1835-36. The log school was build in 1845, but it was destroyed by fire in 1854. A cement school was built in 1866, but it was condemned in 1875, and was replaced by the present yellow brick school on lot 9, con. A, Upper Pilkington in 1885. In the early days, children were brought across the Grand River by canoe. The fifth grade teacher at the school was David Boyle, who gave the name of Middlebrook, because it was located half-way between two picturesque brooks, Carrolls Creek and Bosomworth Creek [now commonly called Middlebrook Creek]." This same one-room school was attended by many local residents until the time it was closed in 1965-6. Most recently it is owned by Sarie Marais, an artist, of Salem and now Sophia Hogan. This important building is located directly next to the Murray pit and it seems likely that gravel trucks for the proposed new (Shoemaker) pit will exit next to it. Our concern is to: Preserve this historical school house and its environs, protecting it from truck traffic and other dangers.
Middlebrook School: Original School House, log cabin 1845, burned and rebuilt 1866, yellow brick1885, as photographed 1998)
Beauty and the Pit. Pilkington Township, in this instance the area in the general vicinity of the Grand River and Carroll Creek, has provided good farm land and woodlots for generations of families. It is a truly beautiful land, with streams, woods, rolling hills, and wildlife which are the delight of those living here, and draws people to admire this lovely rural setting from many miles away. The woodlot and wetland which is the centre of the proposed pit have no doubt been played in, hunted in, and enjoyed by generations of Bosomworths, Shoemakers and others.
A gravel pit is not a beautiful thing. From a few thousand feet in the air, as seen for example in the aerial photograph (see, for example, Map 1 of the "Planning Report for the Shoemaker Pit", Murray Group), there are certain highly noticeable features in our country side. We see the great winding path of the Grand River and of its smaller glistening tributaries, including the Swan, Cox, Canagagigue and Carroll creeks, with carefully tended farmlands and woodlots. And sadly, we cannot help seeing certain "scars" in the land, namely, we see large expanses of barren soil which are our gravel pits. The question before us is: Should we further scar the land, or do we say to the good earth: "Enough is enough".
The question that faces us is whether it is time to take this land and make it into a gravel pit. Should we permanently remove these hills, lying now much as they were when Andrew Dalgarno made his way past them in 1836? Should this Class 1 farm land, which is much needed by farmers in this generation, and by their children, and their children, become a pit? Should we create a barren, lunar-like landscape within metres of two cold water creeks (Middlebrook and Carroll)? Should a woodlot and wetland that is designated Natural Environment become completely surrounded --- on all sides --- by a gravel pit? We believe the answer to these questions is No.
We should not turn this beautiful, useful and culturally interesting land into a gravel pit.
Noise. The continuing most disruptive, annoying and vexing thing about the pit is that it is so noisy as to disrupt family life. It uses equipment with a noise level that would not be allowed if this were a new pit. In other words, if the Shoemaker Pit is considered to be a new pit, it could not legally make the high volume of noise that is made by the current pits. Of course, the extension is new, but it may well be that the law will consider it to be part of the old pit. The extension will add another 10 to 30 years effective life span to the current pit . This means, if the extension is granted, the neighbours will pay for it with a decades-long headache
The "crusher" and the asphalt plant. The noise is difficult to describe. The most aggravating and headache-inducing noise comes from the repetitive crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, crunch, and on into the night, running on a 24-hour schedule for weeks of last year. This is the noise of the crusher. Neighbours describe this crunch-crunch noise as the "Chinese water drop torture." The next most aggravating noise is the asphalt plant, which serves as the 6:00 am alarm clock for the neighbourhood. It sounds like a jet airplane in your neighbours yard.
Good neighbours. The fact is, the pit makes a highly un-neighbourly noise that keeps us from sleeping and from living our lives in peace.
The people in this neighbourhood are in fact quite tolerant of reasonable noises, such as the sounds of farm equipment, and rarely complain of such things. We have been very tolerant of the pit noise during the last year, in the sense that we have not repeatedly complained to the Township Office about it. This good neighbourliness on our part now seems to be backfiring in that the Township Office has only a modest number of complaints about this noise during the last year. We wish to emphasize that our good neighbourliness should not be take as evidence that this noise is anything less than obnoxious.
No noise analysis available. Despite repeated requests to the applicant, to the Township Office and to the Township Planner, absolutely no information about noise analysis has been made available (as of June 22, 1998). We consider this to be quite irresponsible. It prevents the Township Coucillors and us neighbours from making a proper analysis of noise impact and possible noise attenuation. It is a waste of everyones time not to have this noise analysis report.
(Note: Although we have done the best we could, we have not had time to verify all the statements we have made here about noise. This is quite unfortunate, but we suggest that the problem lies with the applicant, who provided us with no analysis of noise impact whatever.)
We therefore request: We be given a report on noise impact and that we be given two months from the time we receive it to respond to it in a public meeting.
In the absence of any reasonable input from the applicant with regard to noise and its attenuation, we will a partial list of our needs and requests regarding noise.
We request:
(1) Before any decision is made regarding this pit, a thorough noise analysis with options to minimize its effect on the area should be made available.
(2) Every effort be made to limit the volume and hours of the pit noise, and to limit the number of years that this noise will continue.
(3)We request that the hours of operation be limited from 8:00 am 5:00 pm, to allow us and our children to sleep and to give us some hours of peace after a days work.
(4) We request no operations on Saturday or Sunday.
(5) We request no horn honking by trucks on the site except for emergencies.
(6) We request an analysis of the "backup beeping" noise from trucks, to see if this noise can be avoided or emitted in a quieter way that maintains safety standards without propagating to neighbourhood houses.
(7) We request that a more modern or quieter asphalt plant be used, and an analysis of ways to decrease the noise for this plant.
(8) We request that the Murray Group prepare an analysis of how to reduce the noise propagating from the crusher.
(9) We request a careful study of the proposed berms and plantings around them around the new site to show that they do or do not effectively minimize noise. (We have been told that they will be ineffective.) We request that an analysis be done to see how to minimize noise emitting from the site by means of baffles or use of noise absorbing materials.
(10) We request an analysis to show the expected number of years that this noise will continue in the neighbourhood.
View of Pit. The proposed pit sits on high ground (up to 378 metres according to the site plan) which can be seen easily from a distance. For example, the farmland and the upper woodlands which make up this sight are clearly viewed --- as a beautiful country landscape --- from County Road 18, and from the two nearest residents: Ric & Marie Holt and Harvey and Carolyn Shoemaker. The loss of this view removes one of the emotional comforts that comes from living in their residences, and removes part of their living enjoyment.
Every effort should be made so that line of sight from these residences has minimal view on the proposed sight. Although it might appear that the berms on the site plan (by George A. Davis) will hide this pit from view, this seems to be wrong. Instead, what seems to be true is that the berms will be only about two metres tall, and that the hill on which the pit will lie is much higher than that. If so, the berms, which are basically piles of removed top soil, will do little to help with lines of sight. From the viewpoints of the Holts and Harvey Shoemaker, and from road 18, it appears that the pit will be largely exposed.
We request: Preparation of an appropriate cross sectional diagram, presumably based on the site plan, which will show the relationship between these viewing positions (nearest residents and Road 18), to make it clear what parts of the pit are to be visible, and to what extent berms, trees and shrubs might be effective in shielding lines of sight.
We request: Every effort be made to create berms and plantings to shield lines of sight, and that these be enforced in the bylaw.
We request: A written agreement to shield, to the degree feasible, the lines of sight from the nearest neighbours to the pit.
Natural Environment: Woodlot. In the early part of the last century, before the arrival of settlers, Pilkington Township contained a great amount of woodlands. Our predecessors came here to find a rewarding land full of natural forest riches. But now, at the end of the 1990s, the Township has a relatively small amount of woodland. The question is: how much of this remaining natural richness shall we, the current generation, pass on to our children? The Township has wisely set about preserving what remains of these woodlands, as its guideline states: (4.2.3 iv) "In Agricultural areas, land owners will be encouraged to protect remaining natural environment features including farm woodlots and wildlife corridors." The Township wisely designated the central part of what is now the proposed pit site, which includes a woodlot, to protect it as a Natural Environment zone. The Township rules indicate that we must carefully consider the fate of this woodlot, in this instance, when the site is to be excavated and rehabilitated. This woodlot is an environmental delight, we can see from the list of wildlife, plants and trees the Limnoterra people observed in their visits (see Appendices of Limnoterra report):
chipmunks, ground hogs, deer, mallards,
red-winged black birds, common grackles, turkey vultures (overhead), starlings, English sparrows,
northern leopard frog, American toad,
trout-lilies, wooly blue violets, Jack-in-the-pulpit, white trillium, red trillium, sharp-lobed hepatica, wild lily-of-the-valley, milkwort, downy yellow violet, blue cohash, early meadow rue, wild leek, bloodroot, strawberry, goldenrod, common buttercup, herb-Robert, wild cucumber, wild ginger, ostrich fern, field horsetail, tall meadow rue, sensitive fern, jewel weed, toothwort, miterwort, Virginia creeper, false Solomon's seal, white baneberry, mint, service berry, wild carrot, raspberry,
sugar maple, white elm, American beech, black cherry, trembling aspen, white ash, basswood, red elderberry, European barberry, hop hornbeam, dotted hawthorn, blue beach, yellow birch.
The Limnoterra Environmental Impact Statement says:
"The proposed pit in the significantly disturbed site will have no continuing environmental impacts that negatively effect the local ecological landscape."
Although this statement seems to guarantee the preservation of this woodlot, this is not the case. The Limnoterra report (page 28) proposes a rehabilitation plan to remove virtually all the land on which this woodlot stands. In other words, it proposes to eliminate virtually all trees, plants, animals and birds in this woodlot. It is important to clarify that the Limnoterra statement of "no negative effect", which is repeated in the pits Planning Report, and again in the proposed new bylaw (as of 15 June 98), does not mean the woodlot is saved --- quite the contrary.
It appears that Limnoterra is faced with the quandary that they know that it is nearly impossible to maintain this beautiful and not very large woodlot, once it is completely surrounded on all sides by gravel pit. It seems that what they are saying is "We have to destroy it to save it". Perhaps they are right. In any event, the statement by Limnoterra regarding no negative effect on the local ecological landscape is either just plain wrong, or at best is quite misleading.
The fact is, this proposed development is within metres of two coldwater (trout) creeks, which join just below it, and surrounds a Natural Environment area, which apparently won't survive. What Limnoterra seems to have discovered with their wells and analysis is that the cold water creeks and their ability to support fish will survive. Of course, we are all happy that these creeks apparently won't be destroyed, but this is not the whole picture.
We therefore request that Limnoterra clarify: What portion of trees, plants, and wildlife will be removed or destroyed from the current Natural Environment area in the site, based on their scenario B, and as well, on scenario A of the site plan.
Our position is that: The original, Natural Environment woodlot is apparently doomed with the proposed development.
We request that: The upper woodland on the site, which is designated Natural Environment by the official Pilkington Township plan, should be saved in its current state, and not destroyed, either by 100% in Limnoterras scenario B or by 50% in the site plans scenario A (as we understand them).
Woodlot
in June 1998
These pictures are taken in June 1998 of the woodlot on the proposed pit site. Shown here is: woodlot tree, animal hole, elderberry, fern, Solomon's seal, wild leek, trillium, collected wood from active woodlot, view across fence from woodlot to existing Bowman pit.
Woodlot
in June 1998
Scenes from woodland including, daisies, young trees with meadow rue, trillium with wild leek, tickseed, grove of ferns, wild malva.
Natural Environment: Concern for Wetland. Limnoterra has prepared the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for this site. According to their web page(www.limnoterragroup.com), Limnoterra is an expert on environmental monitoring and on site rehabilitation. They propose scenario "B", in which 100% of the trees, plants, animals and birds are removed from the Natural Environment upper woodland that surrounds this designated wetland that lies on the site. (If this statement is incorrect, we ask that Limnoterra clarify the situation in their report.)
The result is that in a technical sense, the wetland is preserved, thereby satisfying, to the letter, various public policies. However, this is only a narrow technical sense, which is driven by the conflicting goals of the applicants desire for a pit and existing public policy to preserve important environmental habitat. Stuck with these conficting goals, Limnaterra has apparently chosen, probably wisely, to try to make the best of a bad situation, in their proposed scenario B. Given that the woodland is to be half removed (as proposed in scenario A), in which the remainder seems isolated and perhaps to die, perhaps it is best to bite the bullet and remove the rest. Of course, when doing so, the existing wetland is no longer part of the same ecological system, namely the surrounding woods. In brief, the wetland that exists today in the Natural Environment area will not survive in its current state.
We believe that Limnoterras statement "The proposed pit in the significantly disturbed site will have no continuing environmental impacts that negatively effect the local ecological landscape" is a gross simplification (or is just plain wrong) with regard to the possible survival of this wetland in its current ecological state.
We request that the wetland be preserved in its current status by maintaining all of the existing woods around it, because they are an inherent part of the ecology of this wetland.
Farmland with
woodlot in background in proposed pit area.
Farmland. There is a considerable shortage of farmland in the general area of Pilkington. This shortage is partly due to the new generation of young farmers --- the next generation of Mennonite farmers are a case in point --- who even now are looking further and further for good farm land. This need is wisely recognized in the Pilkington planning documents:
(4.2.3 ix) In considering a proposal to redesignate lands to permit uses other than those permitted in the "agricultural" policies, the initial priority will be to direct such uses away from prime farm land (i.e. where Class 1, 2 and 3 soils predominated) to lesser quality soils. ... Consideration shall also be given to the following in determining the appropriateness of the proposed redesignation: ... (d) the choice of location of and its impacts on agriculture and the natural environment.
In the case of the proposed pit extension, the main part of the 40 plus acres is farm land, the majority of which is Class 1 (See Canada Land Inventory, Soil Capability for Agriculture, shown in Map 5 of "Planning Report for the Shoemaker Pit"). This land has been successfully farmed for years and is farmed to this day by Harvey Shoemaker. It grows row crops: hay, corn and grain. This land is directly adjacent to other farmland, so it is convenient for farming access.
In brief, this is exactly the kind of land that is needed for farming and which the Pilkington planning documents tell us to conserve.
Our position is: This farmland should not be sacrificed to the proposed pit. The proposed amendment should not be passed.
Economic benefits of NOT approving this pit extension. The applications Planning Report states that the "economic impacts" of the proposed development are considered to be positive. The impacts they list all have to do directly with the gravel business, as if that would be the sole economic impact of this development, which is simply not true. For example, they do not mention the cost (the economic impact) of maintaining roads and bridges for gravel trucks. Not surprising, they fail to list the negative economic impacts. We will list some of these, by giving the positive impacts of NOT proceeding with this pit development:
Environmental tourism is a key industry in the Elora and Grand River area. People love the gorge, the river, the creeks, the woods, and the wildlife. They bring money into the area which they spend here. They never, never come to see a gravel pit.
Agriculture is a key industry in Pilkington and the proposed pit removes farm land.
Quality of life. Many people live in this area or retire to this area and bring back their income to be spent from their jobs that are elsewhere, for example, in Elmira, Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, Toronto, etc. These people are happy to live here and to spend money they bring into this area for one key reason: Quality of Life, which commonly means a happiness and peacefulness that comes with the natural beauty in this area. Almost no one decides to come here so they can live near a gravel pit --- even pit owners and workers probably choose not to live next door to their pits.
Sufficient Notice. Earlier and more effective announcement of the public meeting to discuss the Shoemaker pit application was needed. The "flyer" from the Township office announcing the meeting that went out to the neighbourhood, arrived at the mailboxes of households approximately Tuesday, June 9, 1998, which is approximately 11 working days before the announced meeting. Many households directly effected by the pit operation, in particular in which the sound of the pit is clearly heard, and where the trucks to and from the pit pass, were not notified; those who were missed include the households of the Marshalls and Colliers (both on Middlebrook Road, essentially next to the pit), Mr. Steve Lee (on 8th line west) and Ms. Joanne Martin (on County Road 18) all of whom hear the noise of the pit quite clearly in their homes.
The newspaper announcement of this meeting was seen by some of us in the Tuesday, June 15, 1998, issue of the Wellington Advertiser, which is approximately seven working days before the meeting. It seems there was an earlier notice in the Wellington Advertiser, but no neighbour we have talked to has seen it.
These announcements came so late as to make it very difficult to respond appropriately. By comparison, the proposal by the Murray Group which we were asked to respond to, was professionally prepared and presumably took them many months to create. Any comments by the Town Planner are not available to us as of 18 June 1998.
We have asked the Clerk-Treasurer of Pilkington Township twice orally to postpone this public hearing to allow us to gather the facts to present an informed and factual presentation, but were told that this postponement is not possible. We have not had time to consult appropriate legal counsel (our existing legal counsel also represents the Murray Group, so was not able to give us advice) nor to consult with people with expertise in noise, extraction, environment and culture as concerns this site.
There is certain information that is absolutely critical to a reasonable understanding of this application that has not been made available. Most particularly, a detailed analysis of the noise problem and how the noise problem can be alleviated is essential, and has not been provided by the applicant, despite repeated requests.
Our concern is: This process seems designed for the convenience of the applicant with insufficient consideration for the neighbours, who in the end bear the brunt of this development. There has not been time to collect sufficient facts to appropriately present legitimate concerns about this proposal to the Council. We believe the Council needs more facts, some of which the applicant has omitted to provide, before judging this matter.
We therefore request: A postponement by two months of consideration of this matter by the Town Council to allow us to collect the facts about this proposed bylaw.
Knowledge of Proposed Pit Extension. Ric and Marie Holt spent six months (July-January 1996-1997) searching for a home in the country. They worked with an expert in country properties, Ms. Mary Bales, of Kitchener-Waterloo. They worked with and sought advice from a well-recognized Guelph legal firm, Kearns-McKinnon, who is knowledgeable about this area.
They actively sought information about any environmental conditions that might effect their property. Kearns-McKinnon provided them with the relevant sections of the Pilkington Official Plan, and the Pilkington zoning map (Schedule "A"), Land Use Map, Official). This plan shows there is no pit in the immediate vicinity of the home they eventually chose to buy. This plan shows that there is a buffer of Township designated Natural Environment and Agriculture zoned land between the home they eventually purchased and the Bowman complex of pits.
The Holts engaged an environmental expert, Adomait Environmental Solutions Inc, Martin Adomait, M.Sc., P.Eng., of Kitchener Ontario, to carry out an ESA (Environmental Site Assessment) at the site of the home they eventually purchased, in accordance with Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CSAZ768. From the report from Adomait, dated February 16, 1997, we note these passages:
"The site [future Holt home] visit [by Adomait] was intended to investigate the following: Hazardous materials ..., Storage tanks and containers .., Water supply ..., Electrical equipment..., Sewage disposal ..., Topological, geological and hydroeological controls ..., Watercourses, ditches and standing water, Adjacent properties the adjacent land uses that may impact the subject properties. ... Adomait Environmental Solutions conducted surveys, either in person or by phone, with persons knowledgeable with the site [future home] (e.g., neighbours, contractors, former owners, municipal officials)."
The Adomait report further reports: "Interviews were conducted, either in person or by phone, with persons knowledgeable with the site [future home] and the operations. Interviews included the following:
Mr. Cameron Bates/Geana Bates, current owners of property,
Mr. Harvey Shoemaker, son of a previous owner [Wilfred Shoemaker, who is owner of the proposed site] of property, current neighbour,
Ms. Pat Lago, previous owner of property,
Mr. Rick Ryan, health inspector, Wellington Dufferin Health Unit,
Mr. David Martin, Dave Martin Excavating, septic weeping bed installer,
Mr. Bob Foster, building inspector for the Township of Pilkington,
Mr. Gary Tomlinson, MOEE officer for Wellington County."
After this unusually extensive search to determine environmental risks, the Holts proceeded to purchase their new home, unaware of any plans to create a new gravel pit, to which they would be the nearest residents.
Two real estate professionals have estimated that the Holts will lose approximately $50,000 in property value in the presence of this new pit.
Our concerns include: This is an unfortunate and extensive loss to a family, resulting from the lack of relevant and accessible planning information within the Township, which allows the applicants, using local information available to the applicant and its associates, to acquire financial gains, from the installation of this new pit, at the expense of those to which such information is not available.
We believe there should be a carefully thought out and accessible planning document for the area, rather than piece-meal, too often short-sighted actions that too often are considered to be mistakes in hind-sight.
Rehabilitation. The current submissions by the applicant and Limnoterra are not consistent nor complete with respect to how the pit land would be rehabilitated. The current pits are definitely not a good example of rehabilitation. There is a swathe of open, unprotected land near Carroll Creek, close to Middlebrook Road, which should have been rehabilitated long ago. The entire site of the existing pits, as seen in an aerial photograph cries out for rehabilitation of its open pit floor.
It is our understanding that if the current applicant went bankrupt, that we, the people of this Township, County and Province would inherit this mess, and would have to spend our money to fix it. Now and in the future we must avoid the short-sighted thinking that has put us into this sad situation.
We request: Regardless of what happens with the new pit, immediate and progressive rehabilitation of the existing pits should begin now, with a carefully prepared plan. We should not repeat the mistakes of previous years in any new pit development; we must not let the scarred earth lie exposed for decades. We should not allow new excavation until we have a clear solution to the current unrehabilitated pit.
We request: Progressive rehabilitation in the new pit should be done to minimize the effect of the development during its progress (during the next 5 years, next 10 , next 15, etc.) There should be a definite plan that makes clear how, during these stages, the progressive rehabilitation minimizes ecological impact, minimizes visual impact, minimizes noise, etc.
Miscellaneous.
We request that the applicants stated intention in their application to limit their yearly tonnage to 180,000 tonnes per year or less be incorporated into the bylaw.
We request that the applicants stated intention to leave all processing equipment, including crusher and asphalt plant, in their present approximate positions, and not install processing or asphalt equipment in the new site, be incorporated into the bylaw.
Need for clarification of roles. This application for a pit is complicated by the various roles played by the participants. The public and the Council need an explanation of these roles before continuing. Without clarification there is a possibility of the appearance of conflict of interest, which is highly undesirable. One concerns is: Kearns-McKinnon has represented both the applicant and the nearest residential property owner during the last year. It is necessary to explain these two roles, and time is needed to determine this explanation.