GRAVEL PIT O.M.B. HEARINGS

The following comments while focused on sixteen days of OMB hearings nevertheless will also incorporate some past history and experiences dealing with a few of the aspects arising from this hearing just completed in Elmira, Ontario. Regarding legal aspects it has been made clear that the overiding legislation is the provincial Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). All other municipal by-laws, Official Plans and Official Plan Amendments (OPA) are secondary. That being said the proponent however must be flexible and responsive to municipal and or neighbourhood concerns. This responsiveness may well include hiring consultants and experts in the following fields of noise, dust, visual aspects, traffic, soil rehabilatation, hydrogeological and environmental. If the proponent has done the required studies and responded to reasonable concerns expressed, by the use of numerous mitigating methods, then he is most probably going to win at an OMB hearing. That has been the history in Ontario of gravel pits going to the OMB for adjudication. In my opinion the Hunder proponents crossed their t's and dotted their i's. They spent the money, hired the experts and seriously jumped through the hoops and loops presented over a period of years. This opinion is coming from a non lawyer and a non Judge however on a strictly legal basis and despite the impressive case put forward by both Woolwich Township and the CWRA (Conestoga Winterbourne Residents Assoc'n.) I strongly suspect that the Chair (Ms. Shilling) will find in favour of the proponent. The case by the opponents was sincere and they do have legitimate worries about "unacceptable impacts" regarding noise, traffic, visual impacts and agricultural rehabilatation.

Ethical aspects are a whole lot different. Ethically I am appalled by the whole process. It is grossly biased against all parties. It is slow, cumbersome and ridiculously expensive. Someone in the provincial government has made an almost bulletproof legislation in the ARA and then advised both sides in a dispute to duke it out to their last dollar and breath. As far as biased the legislation is intentionally biased against the opponents. Subjective and difficult to prove issues are given short shrift or none at all. Quality of life issues had to be put down into decibels and viewscapes. They were very subjective regardless and one persons horror regarding noise or views literally is of little consequence to another. Regarding decreases in property values for surrounding homes they simply weren't even on the distant skyline. Clearly the legislation does not care or concern itself with that matter. Residents are left to suffer their losses. Regarding the proponent it should also be mentioned that he/she are given assurances that the legislation and provincial intent are on their side. Go through the process, respond appropriately, pay a huge amount to experts, consultants and lawyers and you are home free. But what if your pit is one of the very few that fails? This also is not fair. As homeowners should be financially compensated for their losses (home value/quality of life) so should a proponent who has been encouraged at every turn to proceed. I was appalled at the dollar value I was advised had been spent to get this proposed gravel pit to market.

Political aspects are the most difficult. It is very difficult to judge motives. I have in months and maybe years past posted here that Woolwich Council were up against it with this Application. Promises had been made to residents to keep a Bio-Energy plant out of Elmira that failed. The Jigs Hollow Pit turnaround was breathtaking especially in regards to Recycling of concrete and asphalt being permitted. I stated that Council's credibility and hopes in the upcoming election next year rode on their digging in their heels with both the proposed West Montrose Pit (Capitol) and the Hunder Pit. Well the reality is that they did dig in their heels. So why am I feeling uneasy? Councillor Bryant true to her word supported the citizens against the Hunder Pit. She spent many, many hours at the hearing. Mayor Cowan made a token appearance on the last day. Clearly a majority of Council favoured taking this to the OMB and trying to stop it, hopefully for the benefit of their constituents. Did Councillor Bauman also support spending taxpayers money to try and stop the Hunder Pit? If so that flys in the face of his numerous in Council words that he doesn't favour spending taxpayer money on lawyers. Did our local Council actually, sincerely go to bat for the larger number of citizens opposed to this proposal or did they go to bat for the larger number of votes in the issue? Provincial politics are a different matter. It is my opinion that decades of lobbying by the gravel industry have long ago bought them the influence and power they want at everyone else's expense.

Permitting this gravel pit was never right at this location; but this late in the game, neither is outright denial. There has been a review this past spring and summer of the ARA but the results have not been made public yet. A major overhaul is required not mere cosmetics. Basically the provincial politicians have long ago sold out to gravel interests and they are trying to cover their tracks. They are pitting citizens against citizens and pretending that there is an honest, legitmate process set up to sort out conflicting interests. Provincial politicians aren't willing to advertise to the public that their property rights have been sold out to a higher bidder. They aren't willing to tell citizens and voters that they are in the pockets of wealthy elites when it is so much easier to pretend otherwise. The process is all smoke and mirrors.