6TH DAY (Thurs.) OF HUNDER PIT O.M.B. HEARING

The day started with a Mr. Paul Ferris, witness for Hunder Developments. Mr Ferris is a landscape architect and his evidence was in regards to visual impacts. There are between 21 and 22 viewshed locations surrounding the proposed gravel pit. The vast majority of them are not in dispute by the parties. Mr. Ferris testified that the progressive rehabilitation means that as the pit operators move from one phase to the next they will immediately begin the rehab of the completed/extracted phase. For example when phase six is being extracted, phase five will be undergoing rehabillatation and phase four's rehab will be completed. A participant (Mr.Weber) was mentioned who lives in Winterbourne. His concerns are visual and Mr. Ferris suggested that Mr. Weber's house was 558 metres from the licensed pit boundary. Also Mr. Ferris suggested that Mr. Weber would not have a direct view to the excavated areas. Finally he suggested that with a berm some distance away as well as existing vegetation that he felt that there would be no unacceptable visual impacts for Mr. Weber.

Viewsheds that are in dispute include #10c, 11, 14, 16 and 17. Two points Mr. Ferris emphasized were that while the stockpiles of aggregate would normally be 12 metres high there was at least one phase (6) where they would be reduced to 10 metres to lessen their visual impact. Also there are a number of phases where the stockpiles will only be permitted in specific locations within the phase to lessen their visual impact on the neighbours. A final point suggested by Mr. Ferris was that the stockpiles of material should be located at the lowest pit floor elevation to again minimize their visibility. Ms. Costello on behalf of the Township did point out to Mr. Ferris that berms and plantings are changes to the natural landscape and can themselves be unacceptable. Ms. Costello also tried without sucess to get a time commitment from Mr. Ferris in regards to how long the various berms would be in place.

Ms. Costello made a point about Mr. Ferris identifyng viewsheds when he was mandated to "assess" them. She also spent considerable time in regards to the south view from the Winterbourne cemetery. While she had a point that screening of pit operations by plantings along the cemetery could also destroy the view from the cemetery; it seemed a bit forced. Also her contention that the plantings weren't necessary due to a proposed Hydro building being built I felt carried only little weight. My overall synopsis of Thursday's hearing was that it was a very good day for the proponent. Visually they seem to have their bases covered although Mr. Ferris's cross-exam is not finished and will continue this morning (Fri.).