Re: Southgate aggregate extraction articles

These recently published articles warrant congratulations to writer Doug Karrow on two counts; first, for the in-depth exposure of the current, ineffectual Aggregates Resources Act rules and secondly for the courage to present a first hand account of experiences living close to an active gravel pit.

Until the prospect of a gravel pit as a new neighbour looms on your horizon, how easy it is to read and think, “Thank goodness that’s not in my backyard” and move on. However, when the announcement of a public meeting about a proposed gravel pit in your neighbourhood arrives, many questions about the potential impacts of your quality of life immediately come to mind. There will be noise, dust, air pollution and greatly increased traffic like never before.

If you are wildlife, wetland, forest, water source, heritage structure or aboriginal artifact, “professionals” will study and report on how this gravel pit may affect you. If you are a nearby road, more “professionals” will study your traffic patterns and recommend a pit access and a haul route.

If you are a nearby resident, farmer, school-age child, toddler or senior with health problems, not one “professional” is required to study and report on you. The only organization with the maintenance of your quality of life in their mandate is the township council. They hear and record some public comments at a public meeting and receive letters. They may visit the subject and surrounding properties. Eventually, they will discuss and vote on the rezoning application.

However, according to Southgate Township Procedural Bylaw (13,1-4), the mayor and councillors must disclose pecuniary (direct or indirect) conflict of interest and withdraw from relevant discussions and voting, and may not influence the discussions before or after the meeting. Since some members of council may declare conflicts of interest, based on business or personal connections, then who will be left to speak and decide for the affected constituents and their quality of life concerns?

Given this untenable situation faced by many Southgate residents near the Village of Holstein, doing nothing is not an option for most. Hence, like-minded, affected members of the community are discussing their future with councillors and knowledgeable experts. The proliferation of gravel its in Southgate is already causing difficulties between farmers and neighbours, old friends and families. How many more gravel pits, resentful residents, fractured relationships and the “uglification” of our township will take before council takes a progressive stance and declares a moratorium on land rezoning for aggregate extraction until the Ontario Provincial Government’s Aggregate Resources Act Review is complete and new rules in place. Obviously, the rush is on to rezone land and secure aggregate extraction licences before this happens.

Nobody should be bullied into approving or accepting these proposed zoning changes. Clear-headed leadership with the well being of the whole community is needed.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Myers

On Friday, March 8 I was at home sick and noticed a very large amount of out of town tri-axle dump trucks and roll off trucks heading south on Ida St, Dundalk. I didn’t think much of it as I assumed they were heading to Lystek with a specialized construction material. Late that afternoon, I noticed they were going past the ‘Eco-Park’ and dumping at an absentee landowner’s farm. Neighbours told me this had been going on since Wednesday, but they were using Melancthon Township’s no truck roads to get there until Melancthon put a stop to it.

Looking at a pile [literally thousands of tons] of who knows what material, I had three simple questions.

1] What is in the material?

2] Where is the material from?

3] Is there a permit?

The contractor [Rafat] was very evasive and would not produce any paperwork. This triggers alarm bells for any reasonable person. After leaving messages for Southgate council members, [admittedly, I was quite surly at this point] Councillor Franks and Councillor Evans showed up. Neither of them approached me and asked what my concerns were. They immediately went to the contractor and conversed with them. Then the Mayor phoned and stated all paperwork was in place and was at the office, but it was after hours by now and would have to wait until Monday. Everybody was told to go home and we would get the paperwork Monday morning.

Late Monday afternoon, I received an email from a Southgate employee stating that no permits are needed to bring fill into Southgate at this time. Southgate did not have any paperwork on it and Grand River Conservation Authority was in charge of that. Having already been in touch GRCA, they were on site Monday afternoon and found that there was no permit issued whatsoever. According to the GRCA map available online it appears material was being shoved onto their regulated land. There is also no silt fence in place to protect against run-off and it was mild enough to melt snow all weekend and rained really hard on Monday evening. The contractor also blocked an outlet from a cross culvert under Ida St and water is backing up. The contractor stated that they were not going to haul on the Saturday, and they did. They also stated they had a permit, and they did not. It turns out the material is from Dixie and Dundas area [GTA] and there are several government agencies with concerns. They reacted to my questions with genuine concern. They even followed up on it with me!

Just want to express my disappointment in the local government, as Kim Peeters [a class act] is the only councillor that I have found that will listen and go to bat with any concerns. I take pride in my property and have always tried to keep things presentable for my 16 plus years in Southgate. Any absentee landowner or company can come into Southgate and make a mess without any regard for our environment. All I am trying to do is protect my family’s health, well water and property investment.

Jeff Johnston
Dundalk

The Southgate Public Interest Research Group (SPIRG) is crying foul that Southgate council wants SPIRG to post a $15,000 security before an appeal by the group is heard to an appeal it lost last year.

The township wants SPIRG to put up the money before the hearing of an appeal launched by the group of a ruling by Ontario Superior Court Judge Leonard ruling on Oct, 2, 2012 is heard later this year.

At that time Judge Leonard Ricchetti dismissed SPIRG’s appeal except in one respect from the decision by Southgate’s chief building official to issue a building permit to Lystek International Inc. for the construction of a processing plant in the Dundalk Eco Park.

On Oct. 31 SPIRG appealed that ruling to the Ontario Court of Appeal. No date has been set to hear the matter.

On Dec 7, 2012 Judge Ricchetti ordered SPIRG to pay $40,185.34 as part of the township’s legal costs for the appeal and $1,000 to Lystek.

Both remain unpaid by virtue of the appeal SPIRG launched on Oct. 31 to Judge Ricchetti’s ruling. SPIRG has not appealed the judge’s order for court costs.

“This latest attempt to deny the rights of its citizens is a brazen SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) in the face of the hundreds of community members who have volunteered thousands of hours, and donated tens of thousands of community-raised dollars to have their democratic rights restored,” SPIRG spokesperson James Cooke said in a prepared statement.

According to a Jan.  31 affidavit in support of Southgate’s request that SPIRG put up $15,000 security, Southgate CEO David Milliner said he anticipates the appeal will cost the municipality about $25,000. It wants $15,000 up front from SPIRG in case the court rules against SPIRG.

Mayor Brian Milne asserts that based on his review of SPIRG’s website the group has a small number of volunteer active members without significant assets or any source of income.

He said he believes there is no evidence SPIRG has sufficient assets or reliable resources to pay the township’s $40,000 costs in the first appeal and lacks the resources to pay for the cost of the second appeal.

“Mayor Milne and Southgate Council’s latest attempt to muzzle its citizens by demanding a $15,000 ‘ransom’ before citizens can exercise their legal right to appeal is both undemocratic and deeply disturbing to anyone who cares about the rights of citizens to have a say in the future of their community,” Mr. Cooke said in his statement.

Mayor Milne said during a recent interview that Southgate takes the position that it’s owed $40,000 and thinks it’s only fair that if SPIRG wants to pursue a further appeal then the group should put some money on the table to financially support its allegations.

The mayor denies SPIRG’s claim that the township’s request for the $15,000 security is a form of SLAPP, which discourages public participation by SPIRG.

“Absolutely not. We feel they’ve had their day in court. They lost. They’ve lost every decision to this point. The court has determined they owe us $40,000 in costs, they have not paid it and we feel we’re just doing due diligence to protect our taxpayers against further loss,” Mayor Milne said.

SPIRG also lost a court challenge to continue the blockade of the Dundalk Eco Park brought by the municipality last summer.

“To date they’ve put in a few hundred dollars to file stuff for the court. So far they have not put any skin in the game so to speak,” said Mayor Milne, using a sports analogy to make his point.

Mr. Cooke said although SPIRG has received the benefit of some top legal firms who have volunteered their time to help the group, it does not mean their services are free.

“ SPIRG and other community members have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in costs in exercising our rights before the courts, which was the only option left to us when our many attempts to openly discuss the issues directly with council have been denied and discounted.  This includes a petition seeking an open meeting with the community signed by over 1,000 citizens, which has gone completely ignored for well over a year,” Mr. Cooke said.

March 11 is the date set to hear Southgate’s request that SPIRG post the $15,000 in securities.

No date has been set for the appeal of Judge Ricchetti’s Oct. 2 ruling.

Southgate’s seven-member council was paid a total of $148,740.70 in 2012 including $6,294.01 for mileage, $3,788.29 for conference expenses and $3,288.40 for the cost of Blackberry services.

Mayor Brian Milne received $30,082.70 followed by Councillors Dennis Evans, ($25,582.65), Pat Franks, ($21,428.96), Kim Peeters ($19,574.65), Dale Pallister, ($18,595.28), Deputy Mayor Norm Jack, ($17,990.05) and Councillor Glen Irwin, ($15,486.51).

Councillors receive salary of $10,200 while the mayor is paid $14,280 and the deputy mayor receives base salary of $11,220. In addition all members of councillor are paid for the number of meetings they attend.

The Ontario Municipal Board has dismissed an appeal by a handful of residents opposed to a proposed gravel pit located east of Durham.

James G. Pattullo and Michael J. Risk appealed an amendment to Grey County’s official plan passed by county council on April 5, 2011 to permit the establishment of a gravel pit by Bluewater Logging Ltd. and H.S.C. Aggregates Ltd both owned by Harold Sutherland on three parcels of land at Part Lot 17-20 Conc. 1 and part of Lots 16 and 17 Con. 2 north of Grey County Road 4 east of Durham.

Mr. Pattullo argued that the proximity of the proposed pit operation near a recently closed landfill site with the potential for release of leachate posed a threat to nearby residential drinking water supplies. He also objected to the effect of a proposed internal haul route on significant woodland and wildlife habitat.

Mr. Risk, who was representing a number of objections by local residents, raised concerns about potential impacts of the proposed pit operation on the quantity and direction of surface water flows, the impact of the development on the water table in the immediate and surrounding area as well as the impact on nearby Bell Creek, a cold water stream that crosses the Sutherland property.

He too raised concerns about the migration of leachate from the former Glenelg landfill site as well as the impact of the proposed pit on the health and distribution of endangered species such as the bobolink and butternut trees.

Mr. Pattullo was critical of Sutherland’s ruling, which he claims showed a lack of concern for the outpouring of concerns by residents.

“We didn’t receive a single concession,” he said during an interview on Wednesday.

He was critical of the reports commissioned by Sutherland used to counter objections raised by opponents saying they lacked objectivity.

“This is what proponents in this type of situation do. They buy environmental consultants reports and they buy planners reports and they buy acoustic reports and of course all of these reports support the proposed development. And to treat them as unbiased reports of professionals is just a bad, bad joke,” Mr. Pattullo said.

West Grey council turned down Sutherland’s application for a rezoning of the subject property on May 16,2011,

Then in a document dated March 22, 2012 West Grey clerk Mark Turner wrote that council now supported the passage of a bylaw to rezone Sutherland’s property for a gravel pit.

The primary concern of the participants at the hearing held last year was the preservation of the natural environment and surrounding property.

The Saugeen Conservation signed off on the application and the board chair Sylvia Sutherland was satisfied measures would be in place to protect two endangered species on the property – the bobolink and butternut trees.

The Ministry of Natural Resources provided clearance regarding fish habitat and the proposed setbacks to that habitat that exceed the required 30 metre setback.

For traffic safety reasons Sutherland agreed to move the entrance to the pit from Baptist Church Road to an entrance to be constructed that enters directly on County Road 4.

“I’m disappointed but not surprised that the MOE chose to cover their ass rather than protect the environment,” said Mr. Risk.

“The rot set in when the Harris government let go all of the scientists during the common sense revolution. Then when we began to recover a little bit they didn’t hire back scientists, they hired planners. The planners job is to say yes when a politician asks a question,” he added.

Mr. Pattullo said he thinks there is a basis for a judicial review of the OMB ruling.

“The decision is so purely drafted. Madame chair made it clear during the hearing that she was more interested in her mystery novel than in our concerns. Her refusal to actually personally inspect the site was an indication of that,” said Mr. Patullo.

Mr. Pattullo said the thinks that the hearing officer improperly interpreted the provisions of Provincial Policy Statement and the provincial Planning Act which he believes form grounds there for appeal.

“The provincial policy statement requires a balanced approach to development and here this site has too many problems. Given the abundance of other (aggregate) resources in West Grey this site has too many problems with the landfill, the coldwater creek and the significant woodland and the entrance to name four,” he said.

In her Jan. 22 decision, hearing officer Sylvia Sutherland (no relation to the Harold Sutherland) dismissed the appeal and upheld Grey County OP amendment 99 subject to a few conditions.

She ordered Sutherland to enter into a development agreement with West Grey to address access, location and entrance permit applications, as well as upgrades to Grey Road 4 as determined by the county’s transportation services department.   Sutherland must enter into a road use agreement with the county.

The board also ordered the amendment of the West Grey zoning bylaw to allow the pit operation and ordered the MNR to issue a license for operation of the pit.

The hearing officer wrote that a request by Risk for costs he incurred during the hearing should be made in writing to the OMB.

Southgate has approved an $8.2 million operating and capital budget for 2013 which will boost the local tax rate by 4.09%.

The overall tax rate when combined with Grey County tax increase of 0.74% and projected stable  school board levy drops to a combined 2.25% increase.

The average phased in assessment of a residential property in Southgate for 2013 is $214,203, which represents a 3.37% increase in value over the past year. The total taxes on property assessed at this value in 2013 will be $2,661.13 up by $34.58 from last year.

Among the capital projects planned for this year are a new bridge at a cost of  $230,000 and $200,000 for a tandem truck.

Policing costs are projected to drop by 1.77 % over last year to $816,881.

Mayor Brian Milne described this year’s budget as “pretty fair”. He acknowledged the low county tax rate, which gave lower tier municipalities a bit of wiggle room in calculating their budgets.

Mayor Milne would like to see the timetable for the municipal budget move forward to an earlier date in the year but acknowledged the constraints on staff time.

“It drives me crazy approving budgets late in the year. We’ve had some done as late as the first week of May. . . But staff are busy and I understand that,” he said.

This year’s budget continued to set aside a small amount of money to pay for upgrades to the council chambers. This year’s allocation brings the total amount in reserve to $15,000.

Council agreed to form a committee to gather information on the nature and extent of renovations that could include, new furniture including 10 new desks for council and staff, a speaker system and the possibility of wiring the chamber for video recording of council meetings.

“We want to see what it would take to do the whole thing,” Mayor Milne said.

The former head of Southgate Public Interest Group says Southgate Council’s attempt to seek legal costs following a court injunction to end a blockade of the Dundalk Eco Park last summer is tantamount to using the courts in a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

“The definition of SLAPP is a fairly broad category. There is an asymmetry of financial resources between the party bringing the action and community groups who are on the receiving end of the action,” said Glenn Drummond during a forum organized by Peace And Justice Grey Bruce at the North Grey Union Public Library in Owen Sound. “So when the township decided to file an injunction and then subsequently decided to . . . sue through the courts to get SPIRG to pay their legal costs for the injunction we would call that a SLAPP.”

SPIRG members were active in a blockade to the Dundalk Eco Park where a sludge processing plant was being built to create agricultural fertilizer. A judge ordered an end to the blockade on July 12 of last year. But following that turned down Southgate’s request that SPIRG pay its legal costs in pursuing the injunction that amounted to about $50,000.

Southgate Mayor Brian Milne said during an interview following Saturday’s forum that his council has never attempted to discourage SPIRG from public participation in the democratic or legal process and had the township lost its bid to end the injunction the tables would have been reversed.

“I have no doubt in my mind that if the decision had gone the other way that SPIRG would have been on our doorstep looking for costs and fully expected to be paid. In all fairness I think Southgate would have been obligated to pay,” Mayor Milne said.

In December a judge ordered the group to pay $40,000 of court costs Southgate sought relating to an appeal SPIRG launched against a building permit issued to Lystek International last February. And the $40,000 sought by Southgate was only half of the total cost the municipality incurred.

On Oct. 2, 2012 the judge upheld the building permit and ruled Lystek could complete construction of the building, but couldn’t operate the facility until it was connected to municipal water and sewer services.

SPIRG has appealed the judge’s ruling and two Ministry of Environment approvals for the Lystek plant. A date has yet to be set for that hearing.

Mayor Milne noted that SPIRG to date has lost its appeal of the building permit and its opposition to imposing an injunction and yet has most recently appealed the judge’s ruling allowing the building permit.

“I don’t know how we could argue that we are stifling their participation. This has gone on for a year or more now. No one is suggesting that they should not be arguing their case. But they have consistently in every decision that has come forward. How far are they prepared to do with this,” said the mayor. He feels obligated to recover as much of the public money used to pay for legal costs so long as SPIRG continues to challenge the municipality.

The other speaker at Saturday’s event was former Ontario environment prosecutor Ramani Nadarajah who is now a lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. She spoke about the use of law suits brought to silence public discussion on important public issues.

She said SLAPP suits threaten and undermine well-established public participation rights by improperly using the judicial system to discourage citizens from participating in public decision-making processes.

Key components of a SLAPP include some tactical reason for the suit usually to silence or intimidate a group or individual from public participation and there’s an economic imbalance between the SLAPP target and the person launching the action.

“The effect is not only on the target group. It has a ripple effect . . . undermines public involvement in the public process . . . it has a chilling effect,” Ms. Nadarajah said.

Quebec is the only province with anti-SLAPP legislation. British Columbia at one time enacted legislation but it was subsequently repealed.

In May 2010, the attorney general established an advisory panel to recommend content for legislation to target these lawsuits. In its December 2010 report, the Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel recommended that Ontario “enact legislation against the use of legal processes that affect people’s ability or willingness to express views or take actions on matters of public interest” and it set out specific effective measures for doing so.

Ms. Nadarajah urged the 40 or so people at Saturday’s meeting to sign a petition being circulated calling on Ontario’s new premier Kathleen Wynne to introduce Anti-SLAPP legislation.

After lengthy negotiations and prodding, Southgate finally has a draft recreation agreement with Wellington North.

“It seems like it’s been a drawn out, dragged out affair,” said Councillor Pat Franks, who is Southgate’s representative on the Wellington North Recreation Committee.

Southgate for years has contracted with Wellington North for use of the sports complex in Mount Forest for use by the residents of the Holstein area. But getting an agreement with Wellington North has never been easy.

Deputy Mayor Norm Jack said trying to get a recreation agreement with Wellington North has been a struggle for more than a decade.

Last year Wellington North didn’t receive payment from Southgate because of a failure to come to an agreement.

“Last year they didn’t get paid because they didn’t have an agreement in place. You snooze you lose,” said Councillor Franks. “Here we are into the eleventh month of this year and we’re still scrambling.”

Under the four year draft agreement, which is retroactive to January of this year, Southgate will pay $21,900 a year for use of the recreation complex. Annual increases are tied to the consumer price index.

The Wellington North recreation director is to provide Southgate with quarterly reports on the ice related activities of the recreation complex. Payment by Southgate is tied to receiving those reports.

Mayor Brian Milne said he’s received assurances from Wellington North Mayor Ray Tout that with a new municipal treasurer things will go smoother.

“Maybe that will help. I don’t know. We’ll wait and see,” said Councillor Franks. She said is looking forward to continuing on as Southgate’s representative on the Wellington North recreation board.

Last week this protest group successfully interfered with a research project, taken on by one of our own!

A young lady from Southgate, who in the process of completing her Master of Science degree in Health Geography, became interested in learning more about biosolids and has focused her time and money in pursuit of this knowledge. This young lady, under the supervision of the Principle Investigator, simply sent out a questionnaire, in an effort to investigate community perceptions related to the processing and land application of biosolids.  This project was an invitation to be for you and me to become involved.  No one was being coerced to participate; it was strictly voluntary.

This survey is professionally thorough and non-offensive, and yet what has the “Stop the biosolids” group done?  This group has aggressively protested to the university in such a threatening way, that the university had to terminate the research study for fear of an administrative error surfacing, not because of anything the student has done wrong.

Am I upset?  Absolutely.  And each of you should be as well.  In fact, perhaps we should all be embarrassed and ashamed for not speaking up sooner.

What are these people so afraid of that they would stop a viable research project?  If these people want truth, as they say they do, then I would say… pursue truth (get facts, not assumptions or opinions), but don’t be surprised if the truth leads to realizing you might be wrong

In a recent Facebook comment, a member of the activist group stated… “I bet the University of Western Ontario is embarrassed about this survey!”  I don’t for a moment perceive the university as being embarrassed, but rather supporting their student’s integrity.  This same person has maliciously tried to smear the reputation of the student previously mentioned and called her integrity into question.  The university released a letter to Southgate residents this week giving explanation of the goals of the study and supporting student Sarah Mason’s integrity throughout this process

When speaking of integrity, why are we (you and me) not speaking out about the rudeness, offensiveness, and disrespectful behavior, as well as the derogatory and inflammatory words, spoken and written by this group of protesters? Since when do we no longer hold individuals and groups accountable for their behavior?

I think it’s time for us to stand up to this kind of behavior and refuse to be intimidated by the actions of a few individuals. Let’s quit allowing them to speak on behalf of the entire community.

Sincerely,
Ann E. Gillies

I have a message for the residents of Southgate who continue to harass and oppose this council.

You may have once had my sympathy for some of your concerns. However, that is no longer the case.

If you were unable to discern the intent of the voluntary Perceptions Related to the Processing and Land Application of Biosolids in the Township of Southgate study by Western University, and you did not wish to participate, why didn’t you simply throw it away? Why did you feel the need to make complaints and threats? All you have managed to do is waste six months of a university student’s work and cause unnecessary stress.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you would choose your issues thoughtfully and rationally, and stop wasting other people’s time and money.

(And yes, I do know the mayor and Ms. Mason, but that certainly does not nullify my opinion.)

Sincerely,
Heather Renton