14TH DAY (Wed.) OF HUNDER PIT OMB HEARINGS

Dr. Heck (sp.??) was on the stand at the start of the day being further examined by Mr. Paton on behalf of the CWRA. Dr. Heck added that even the subsoil below the topsoil requires cracks and fracturing to allow excess water to drain. He further advised that the current soils quality should be the target versus simply "maximizing" soil rehabillatation. As I understood him there is a problem with early progressive rehabillatation in that once done; if the water table rises then at that point it's too late to raise the pit floor and rehabillatated soils above it. He also expressed concerns with the amount of compaction that occurs. Although there will be ripping applied to the pit floor prior to adding soils, Dr. Heck would like greater details as to how much ripping, how much criss-crossing etc.. He also believes that it is inevitable that subsoils will be mixed with topsoils thus degrading the topsoils significantly.

Mr. Pickfield cross-examined Dr. Heck with reasonable sucess. He pointed out that while Dr. Heck is certainly an expert and authority on soils, that his gravel pit experience was very limited. Mr. Pickfield also pointed out the prior testimony of a hydrogeologist who stated that at most the water table would only rise from it's current high water mark to .1 to .3 metre higher. Dr. Heck was not impressed with that evidence suggesting that any rise would undermine all the assumptions and rehab plans to date. Dr. Heck and Mr. Pickfield got a little bit testy during the cross-exam but that simply may have been misunderstandings in word definitions and or differences in style.

The Chair, Ms Schiller also asked Dr. Heck a few questions to clarify an earlier reference to 100 cm. above either the Bedrock or perhaps in relation to a thickness of a geological unit.

Mr. Sorenson, a planner, was next on the stand on behalf of the CWRA. He stated that the proposed Hunder Pit was "fundamentally incompatible" with the neighbourhood. He felt that the Provincial Policy Statement was a two way street and as residential subdivisions should not be approved next to an established gravel pit; that a new pit should not be approved next to established residential subdivisions. He also suggested that a municipal council has a duty to determine if there are other viable gravel sites further from prime agricultural lands that could be developed. He strongly believes that the Hunder proposal does not represent good planning and is akin to putting a heavy industrial operation next to a residential one.

Ms. Costello on behalf of Woolwich Township asked Mr. Sorenson whether planners are routinely called upon to exercise professional judgement in their duties. He stated yes. She then asked whether that judgement would often be subjective to which he also agreed.

Mr. Pickfield questioned Mr. Sorenson on his opinion that the berms were of unusual height. He suggested that both the five metre height as well as their length was an artificial way to try and maintain compatibility with the neighbourhood. He again referred to them and the proposed pit as "fundamentally incompatible" with the neighbourhood.

At the very end of the hearing yesterday the Chair posed a question for the parties to answer if they so wished. She listed a number of assumptions/conditions first and then asked "What is the impact on the status of the gravel pit in terms of the Planning Act and the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) if the temporary use by-law allowing recycling is not renewed by the Township after three years ?".