THE HUNDER PIT OMB HEARING CONCLUDES

The Chair as expected is reserving her Decision. This morning I will be relating yesterday's final Argument by the three lawyers for the parties namely Mr. Pickfield (Hunder), Ms. Costello (Woolwich) and Mr. Paton (Conestoga Winterbourne Residents Assoc'n). It should be noted that the room was filled with over sixty citizens present.

Mr. Pickfield emphasized the reasonableness and responsiveness of the proponent. He stated that municipal standards could not conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement which states that municipalities must protect and make available aggregate resources. Municipal standards must be clear and objective , not ill defined. They must be attainable and not a prohibition in disguise. Mr. Pickfield suggested that the Township's noise expert, Mr Emeljanow, first suggested his basic flaw theory in the spring of 2013. This flaw allegedly was the lack of ambient (background) monitoring.

Ms. Costello advised that currently there are 17 active gravel pits in Woolwich Township with five recent Applications. Three have been approved by the Township, one withdrawn and the Hunder Pit opposed. She believes that this location is a fundamental mismatch with current land uses as it would be in the middle of three existing communities. Further she stated that there were no substantive changes by the Applicant, only cosmetic ones. Woolwich Council, her client, feel that this pit is not in the long term public interest. Further the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) states it must be an Interim use not an indeterminate use of the land. Ms. Costello also focused on Recycling (concrete & asphalt) as being a separate, ancillary, industrial use which the Township does not automatically approve.

Mr. Paton suggested that if approved his clients would prefer if Phases 2 & 3, south of Hunsberger Road were excluded. He stated that the highest possible standards of rehabillatation were required not just the industry norm. He also stated that coordination of operations between the Jigs Hollow Pit and the Hunder Pit was unrealistic and not possible. He pointed out the historic lack of enforcement by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) as well as the fact that aggregate was not originally identified on the Hunder/Snyder property prior to the Golf Course Rd. subdivision. Finally Mr. Paton advised that the OMB in the past has refused to approve a License to a pit prior to an Operator of the pit being identified.

There were questions by the Chair to Ms. Costello as she had provided a written response to the Chair's question last week regarding the effects of the Township not renewing the three year zoning by-law permitting Recycling on the site. All parties eventually seemed to agree that the Minister (MNR) would be bound by the Township's decision on that matter (Recycling) alone.

I have put together four very interesting Terms/Conditions that various opponents to the pit have suggested. They are:

1) Sunset Clause
2) exclude 2 phases south of Hunsberger Rd.
3) operator named prior to a License approval
4) Recycling excluded

It is all in the hands of the Chair, Ms. Schiller, right now. She can approve as is, refuse as is or approve with new conditions such as the above. In the next day or two I will comment on my overall impression of the legal, ethical, political, environmental and social aspects of this my first OMB hearing.